Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (DETAINED BRITONS AND AMERICANS)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his representations to the Chinese Government in respect of the various British and American citizens at present in custody in China.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): None, so far.

Mr. Maclean: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Pekin has been allowed access to these prisoners?

Mr. Lloyd: That is rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper. The answer is, in fact, no.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. and learned Friend press for an early answer and also for satisfaction on the question of access, which is a fundamental right?

Mr. Lloyd: The representations in fact were made on 21st April. We shall certainly press for an answer to those, and the point my hon. Friend has mentioned certainly will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Discussions

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement concerning the progress of the present negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): As the discussions we are having with the

Egyptian Government are still only exploratory, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I would prefer not to make a statement at present.

Mr. Maclean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the people of this country as a whole share his desire for an equitable settlement with Egypt, at the same time he has the support of the overwhelming majority in his refusal to sacrifice the interests of the Sudan in order to obtain a settlement?

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider means by which representative Sudanese could be brought in to take part in the negotiations with Egypt, now taking place on the future of the Sudan.

Mr. Eden: This possibility has been under consideration by Her Majesty's Government, but I would prefer to make no further statement about it at present.

Mr. Price: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind how desirable it is that the Sudanese should take part as far as possible in these negotiations?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, very much

Cairo Riots (British Compensation)

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a satisfactory reply from the Egyptian Government with regard to the payment of compensation to the next of kin of British subject who were killed in the recent riots in Cairo; how far damages have been awarded for the destruction of British property; and whether British subjects illegally dismissed from the Civil Service, in spite of their contracts, have received adequate compensation for loss of office.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In spite of repeated representations to the Egyptian Government, compensation has not yet been paid either to the dependants of those who lost their lives or to those who suffered personal injury or damage to their property during the riots. Three months' salary in lieu of notice has been paid to the dismissed officials, but payment has not been made of allowances for the same period nor of compensation for loss of employment on an adequate


scale, in view of the terms on which they were engaged. We therefore renewed our representations on all these points as recently as 1st May.

Sir D. Savory: In view of the fact that, according to reliable correspondents in Cairo, deliberate incitement by the police took place in the murders at the Turf Club, when youths were armed with weapons with which these murders were carried out, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his negotiations with the Egyptian Government insisted that adequate compensation must be paid to the next of kin?

Mr. Lloyd: I think one factor to be borne in mind is that there is now a different Government in Egypt than there was at the time that these incidents took place. We have made strong representations with regard to this matter, and I think that for the moment the matter had better lie there.

PERSIA (BAHRAIN SOVEREIGNTY)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the Persian Government in respect to their complaint about British interference in Bahrain; and how far the Persian claim to sovereignty over it is recognised by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the Persian claim to sovereignty over Bahrain. Her Majesty's Representative in Tehran therefore replied to the Persian Government on 1st May rejecting the Persian complaint of British interference in the affairs of the Island. I am placing a copy of Her Majesty's Representative's Note Verbale in the Library.

Mr. M. Follick: Is the Minister aware that the Arab population of the whole of that area is entirely against any further encroachment of that territory by the Persians?

SPAIN (BRITISH CHURCH, SEVILLE)

Sir D. Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state what compensation has been obtained for the

onslaught on the British-owned church at Seville, when valuable property was destroyed, including hymn-books and prayer-books.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In his Note to the Spanish Government of 18th March, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid reserved the right to claim compensation for the damage done. After consultation with the owners of the property, Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed on 2nd May to present a claim.

Sir D. Savory: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the attack on the Protestant church in Seville was a signal for numerous attacks in other parts of Spain of exactly the same kind, for instance in Badajoz where prayer books and hymn-books were also burned? Will he not make representations to the Spanish Government as to the deplorable impression made in this country by the continued persecution of Protestants?

Mr. Lloyd: Those are different matters from those referred to in the Question. With regard to this incident, the Spanish Government expressed regret as to what happened and we are now making further representations about compensation.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the Question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) commands universal approval on both sides of the House? Will he represent to the Government of the United States and other Governments the undesirability of including Spain under the present régime in any organisation for defending democracy or the Christian faith?

Mr. Lloyd: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Contractual Agreements (Negotiations)

Sir D. Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will submit to the approval of the House of Commons the contractual agreement now being negotiated with the Federal Government of Western Germany before final ratification.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Sir D. Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain how it is that members of the Federal Parliament in Bonn have seen copies of these agreements and even have some in their possession? May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give Members of this House an opportunity of making suggestions with regard to these agreements and that we shall not be presented with a fait accompli as we were when the Italian and Finnish treaties were laid before us?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend knows the constitutional position perfectly well. I have said "Yes" in answer to his Question. If he wants to ask another Question, perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the terms of the contractual agreement being negotiated between the British and West German Governments; and how far, as a result of these agreements, any further occupational costs will fall on the British taxpayer.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the proposed new contractual relationship with the German Federal Republic will not contain any financial clauses that will increase the burden falling upon the British taxpayer in relation to the common defenses of Western Europe.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much extra he estimates will be the cost of our Armed Forces in Germany if the present German contribution is reduced, as officially proposed, to enable the Germans to re-arm themselves.

Mr. Eden: As I informed the House on 28th February, the Federal Government has agreed that from the date of the entry into force of the contractual agreement until 30th June, 1953, it will pay 850 million deutschemarks—about £70 million—a month to cover the German contribution to the European Defence Community and the support of the Allied Forces stationed in the Federal Republic.
While this total should be sufficient to cover both sets of costs during this period, the amount of the total which will be available to meet the costs of the

Allied Forces is still the subject of negotiation. I am not yet, therefore, in a position to make any final statement.

Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the first part of the Question, which asks him whether he will state the terms of the contractual agreement? Does he not consider it highly undesirable, as suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory), that these matters should have been discussed by the German Parliament and not disclosed to Members of the British Parliament?

Mr. Eden: Is the hon. and learned Member dealing with the terms of the contractual negotiation?

Mr. Bing: Yes, the first part of the Question which asks whether he will state the terms of the contractual agreement.

Mr. Eden: These are being negotiated between us and the German Government. The position with regard to these negotiations is perfectly well known to the House. The responsibility for the signature of the agreement is that of the Government of the day. I have repeatedly told the House, and I again repeat, that there will of course be full opportunity for debate before ratification takes place.

Mr. Bing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of this agreement have been disclosed to individual members of the German Parliament, and will he not afford the same facility to Members of the British Parliament?

Mr. Eden: There may have been some disclosure of information to leaders of the parties—I do not know—but our constitutional position is perfectly clear. The Government of the day takes responsibility for concluding any negotiation, but it is for Parliament to ratify. I have repeatedly stated, and I repeat now, that this House will have the fullest opportunity for discussion before ratification.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the Foreign Secretary's reply with regard to the cost mean that, as has been reported in the Press, if the present financial negotiations go through and permit of German re-armament, the British taxpayer will have to pay between £150 million and £200 million more to the British occupation costs in Germany than at present?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. What I have been dealing with is the period up to 30th June next year in respect of which, although I cannot undertake, I think that the sum available will cover both matters. After that we shall be in a new position, which will require a new assessment. But the House must understand that the problem which we are faced with is creating a defensive position in Germany, which is a problem that the late Government had to face and entered, therefore, into these discussions.

Mr. Michael Foot: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries about this alleged disclosure of part of this information in Bonn and, if not, does he not think he ought to do so if they are, in fact, in possession of information which is denied to us?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I have made inquiries. I have asked the High Commissioner for a report. But our own constitutional position is perfectly plain. The Government of the day takes responsibility for the signature of the agreement. Parliament has every right, and—I have pledged repeatedly—will have the fullest opportunity for discussion before ratification.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is intended that the contractual agreements between the British and West German Governments will be ready for signature; and if he will submit these agreements in draft to Parliament before signature.

Mr. Eden: On the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given on this point to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 5th May. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer to the reply already given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim. South (Sir D. Savory).

Mr. Stephen Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present annual output of occupational costs in respect of West Germany that falls on the British taxpayer; and what amount is now being proposed in negotiations with the West German Government.

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member is referring to internal occupation costs, these are incurred in German currency and none fall on the British taxpayer.

External occupation costs, which include military equipment and pay of Her Majesty's Forces, have always been met by the Powers concerned.
As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I have already given to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).

Mr. Swingler: Could the Foreign Secretary now say when it will be possible for him to give an estimate in plain terms of what is the increase in these costs as a result of this treaty?

Mr. Eden: I thought that I could hardly have made it plainer. The position is that, until a certain date next year—it may be in June, or it may be a little earlier—there will be no change in respect of our occupation costs. After that date, and I cannot say what date it will be, because it depends how far expenditure is divided between the German contribution and our own—it may be the end of April or the end of June—after that date, there will certainly be an extra contribution of ours on account of the contribution the Germans themselves are making.

Mr. Shinwell: In any event, if some time there is to be a peace treaty concluded with Germany, will it not be necessary to readjust the occupation costs?

Mr. Eden: That is absolutely inevitable.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state in terms of prices at the latest convenient date the percentage of defence expenditure in terms of the national product proposed to be expended by Great Britain for the year 1952-53 and the corresponding percentage which it is proposed under the contractual agreement between Great Britain and the West German Republic shall be expended by Western Germany.

Mr. Eden: The expenditure by the German Federal Republic recommended by the Executive Bureau of the Temporary Council Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as comparable with the defence efforts of the other principal Western countries in the year ending 30th June, 1953, and accepted by


the Federal Government as a basis for its defence expenditure, was 10.5 per cent. of the estimated gross national product. When the United Kingdom defence effort was examined by the Temporary Council Committee last November, it was estimated that our defence expenditure would, on the same basis, amount to 12.8 per cent. of gross national product. Since then, circumstances have changed, but material is not yet available to provide an up-to-date comparative figure.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to give us some further figures?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult me about that. I should like to give the information as soon as I can. The point is that actually our expenditure is not now as high as 12.8 per cent. It is difficult to give a figure, but I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman and give it to him.

Mr. David Logan: If Soviet troops had control of Europe, would it be cheaper for the British taxpayers?

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conditions or safeguards there will be under the new contractual relationship with the German Federal Republic, to ensure the promotion of democratic institutions and trade unions in Germany and to prevent the revival of militaristic nationalism, anti-semitism and other phenomena characteristic of the Nazi régime.

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) on 5th December last. The importance of measures to prevent a revival of undemocratic tendencies, whether of the Right or the Left, has been fully taken into account in the negotiations between the German Federal Republic and the three Occupying Powers.

Mr. Driberg: If there are such safeguards or guarantees, as was also indicated by the Minister of State in his reply to Question No. 41, how is that reconcilable with the resolution of the Bundestag demanding complete sovereignty for the Federal Republic?

Mr. Eden: Well, Sir, certain arrangements have been entered into in these

negotiations. As I have explained many times to the House today, there will be full opportunity for this House to debate those arrangements before they are finally ratified. Clearly, I cannot go into the details of them at this time.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the order of the day, approved by the French National Assembly on 19th February, 1952, which declares that the contractual agreements to be made with the West German Government must include the necessary guarantees on the subject of armament manufacture, police and division of financial burdens; what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Government's representatives in regard to these conditions in connection with the contractual agreements now being negotiated between the British Government and the Federal German Republic; and what are the terms of the necessary guarantees upon which Her Majesty's Government will insist.

Mr. Eden: As regards German armaments manufacture, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have given to the hon. Member for Ayrshire Central (Mr. Manuel). The European Defence Community Treaty provides also for supervision of national police forces.
In regard to the German financial contribution to Western Defence, I would refer to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).

Mr. Hughes: Can the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that in any contractual agreement to which this country is partner, the wishes of the French people on these vital matters will be respected?

Mr. Eden: I think that the French Government must speak for the French people. I do not know that I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question means. My responsibility is to speak for the people of this country.

Free Elections (Proposed Four-Power Conference)

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in calling a Four-Power Conference


to discuss the possibility of organising free elections in Eastern and Western Germany.

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take, or are taking, to ensure that a Four-Power Conference is held as soon as practicable to discuss the proposal to hold free elections in Eastern and Western Germany.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will consult with the United States and French Governments with a view to immediately inviting the Government of the Union of Soviet Republics to take part in a conference for the sole purpose of agreeing the necessary arrangements for genuinely free all-German elections.

Mr. John Baird: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to send to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics an answer to their Note of 9th April, 1952.

Mr. Eden: I am in consultation with the French and United States Governments and also with the German Federal Government about the reply to be sent to the latest Soviet note about Germany. I hope we shall be sending this reply very shortly, but I cannot now anticipate its contents.

Mr. Bing: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it would be far more suitable from every point of view if we were able to get agreement on Germany than to have two sides of Germany, one armed against the other? Will he taken the utmost steps to secure that conclusion?

Mr. Eden: I have to bear a great number of matters in mind, of which that is one.

Mr. Dodds: What harm can be done by holding a Four-Power Conference to find out the extent of the sincerity of the Russian proposals? Could not much good be done, and is it not now obvious that unless this vital step is taken, there is little chance of getting any agreement with the West Germans about unity or defence?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to reveal the reply to a Note

which cannot yet be made public. I can only say that we certainly do not exclude the possibility of a Four-Power meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good."]—at the appropriate moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Certainly. What is the "Ah" about? Is not that the right way to do it? Have we not the lesson about Four-Power meetings and adequate preparation? What I am not prepared to do is to go into a Four-Power meeting without a proper definition of its objects and a proper preparation for its work.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman take what steps are open to him, however, to see that the conference is held almost immediately before any irrevocable step is taken?

Mr. Eden: We would prefer that the meeting should be properly prepared and that we should clearly understand its purpose and scope, rather than that we should hold it hurriedly with the kind of results which have occurred on previous occasions.

Mr. Bing: Would the Foreign Secretary say, however, that any proposals for the re-arming of Western Germany should be held up until that conference has been held?

Mr. Eden: I am certainly not prepared to stop the process initiated by the late Government for the incorporation of the free nations of the West in a joint effort unless and until a meeting with Russia has taken place.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in securing the postponement of consideration of a German contribution to western defence until Four-Power talks have been held to consider the possibility of holding free all-German elections.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have no hope of obtaining the whole-hearted co-operation of the West German people with the West if he insists on rushing through a treaty in accordance with a rigid timetable which excludes all possibility of examining seriously the Soviet note before irrevocable decisions are taken, and if he genuinely desires the integration of Germany with the West, is it not


more important to meet German desires on this, than merely to get mechanical arrangements with them?

Mr. Eden: I do not know what authority the hon. Lady has to express the German desires. So far as I judge the situation, there is no reason whatever for us to halt in the arrangements we are making. I think that if we do, the result for the future peace of Europe might be disastrous. Continuing the work which the late Government rightly started in this respect does not peclude a constructive reply to the Soviet note. I asked the hon. Lady to await that reply before she judges its character unsatisfactorily.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that it was the policy of Western Defence carried through at Lisbon which induced the Russian Government to put in their Note about German unity?

Mr. Eden: I should have thought that any intelligent observer would have been fully alive to that.

Re-armament

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the agreements with Western Germany now being negotiated are consistent with the principle that German re-armament should only be permitted if the re-armament of countries of the Atlantic Treaty precede that of Germany; that German units are integrated in the defence forces in a way which would preclude an emergence of German militarism; and that the free agreement of the German people to rearmament has been obtained.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has put forward in negotiations with the West German Government for enabling the German people to express their views on the subject of re-armament.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the re-armament of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries shall precede that of West Germany.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will postpone any

further demands for a measure of German re-armament until the German people have had an opportunity of expressing their views on the issue at another election.

Mr. Eden: In December, 1950, the principle of a German contribution to the joint defence of Western Europe was accepted by His late Majesty's Government and all the other N.A.T.O. Governments. I am satisfied that the arrangements now under negotiation for providing for that contribution are consistent with the principles mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). No German units will be recruited until the European Defence Community Treaty has been ratified. Their formation and their equipment will take place within the European Defence Community in accordance with the plans agreed by the North Atlantic Council at Lisbon.
The agreements now under negotiation for a new contractual relationship with the German Federal Republic and for the establishment of the European Defence Community will be subject to ratification by all the parties concerned in accordance with their constitutional processes.

Mr. Bing: Does the right hon. Gentleman by that reply mean that he is in favour of elections in Germany in order to come to a fair and proper conclusion on this matter, and does he consider that the terms which he is putting forward are in accordance with the terms as set forth in the French order of the day as printed in the White Paper?

Mr. Eden: I do not know on what grounds the hon. and learned Member raises the questions of elections in Germany. The present German Government was elected under processes approved by the Allies and is as entitled to respect as any other Government, such as the late Socialist Government, which had a much smaller majority than Dr. Adenauer has today.

Mr. Hughes: Has there been any communication from the Government of the United States about the possibility of a meeting in Berlin with the representatives of the four Governments there about arranging elections in Germany? If so, what has been the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Can the Foreign Secretary give the assurance that in the coming negotiations he will not play the


part of an inverted Mr. Molotov and say, "No. no" when the people of this country want him to say "Yes"?

Mr. Eden: I have a feeling that the people of this country would expect me to express myself as I did just now to the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite: that I am perfectly ready at any time to enter into any reasonable negotiation, but that I am not going to a Palais Rose waste of time like we had last summer.

Mr. Hughes: May I have a reply to the first part of the question?

Mr. Eden: The reply will be issued by the Powers concerned together, and the hon. Member will be surprised to learn that they are in agreement about it.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Foreign Secretary saying that the German people have been consulted about the proposals now being put forward? This is a different situation to 12 months ago. What steps have been taken to discover the attitude of the German people towards these proposals, and how far does the right hon. Gentleman claim that the German people agree to the agreements now being made?

Mr. Eden: The present German Government was elected by the German people, as are other free Governments in other countries of the West. When the previous Government made the agreement last September, to which we are now giving expression, there was no question of challenging the proper representative quality of the present German Government nor am I prepared to challenge that quality any more than the quality of any other Government freely elected by the electors.

Mr. Philips Price: Would it not be an interference in the internal affairs of Germany and also undermine the authority of Dr. Adenauer if we were to refuse to continue negotiations until there was a general election in Germany?

Mr. Eden: I am in full agreement with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will instruct his hon. Friends accordingly.

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that no step will be taken to agree to the re-armament of

Western Germany before a debate has taken place in this House upon that subject.

Mr. Eden: The principle of a German contribution to Western defence was accepted by His late Majesty's Government and the other N.A.T.O. Governments in December, 1950, and reaffirmed in the Washington Declaration of September, 1951. As I have already said, the texts of the Agreements with Western Germany to which Her Majesty's Government will be party will be submitted in full to the House before being ratified.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement on the extent of the West German defence contribution.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the course of the official negotiations for German rearmament now taking place.

Mr. Eden: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on 5th May.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Foreign Secretary take an early opportunity of making clear to the country exactly what is the additional financial burden that will be cast upon this country by these proposals?

Mr. Eden: I thought I had already made it clear that it is our hope that, until 30th June next year, the financial burden will not be of a serious character. After that, it will be necessary to make a fresh calculation on the basis of the situation as we then find it.

Mr. E. Shinwell: In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement on the possible additional burden which will be imposed on the people of this country if that step is not taken?

Mr. Eden: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree with every word of his supplementary question.

Mr. Cyril Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's Representatives on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to request a joint


meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community to consider the text of the treaty dealing with the re-armament of Germany; and whether he will arrange for the draft of the treaty to be laid before Parliament before it is submitted to the European Defence Community for ratification.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representatives at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to request that a joint meeting with the European Defence Organisation be held in order to examine the terms of the proposed treaty with Western Germany and to ensure that it contains no provision which would result in a re-emergence of German militarism.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No joint meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community can be held until the European Defence Community comes into existence. The Treaty setting up the European Defence Community will come into force simultaneously with the entry into force of the Contractual Agreement with the German Federal Republic. The question of submitting either that Agreement or the European Defence Treaty to a joint meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Defence Community prior to ratification cannot, therefore, arise. But as soon as the draft of the European Defence Community Treaty is complete, it will be examined by the North Atlantic Council to confirm that it includes, amongst other things, adequate safeguards against the danger of a revival of German militarism.

Mr. Craddock: What steps does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take to influence decisions which are being taken by E.D.C. so as to prevent undesirable features in German re-armament?

Mr. Lloyd: That matter, should it arise, will be dealt with by the North Atlantic Council, who will have a full opportunity of seeing whether those safeguards against the danger which the hon. Member fears are provided for

Armament Production

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he has reached no agreement so far with the German Federal Republic in regard to armament production in Germany.

Mr. Eden: In my statement to the House on 28th February, I explained how the question of German armaments production will be dealt with in the European Defence Community, with safeguards covering the interests of this country and the United States of America.
Negotiations between the countries which will be parties to the European Defence Community Treaty are still proceeding in Paris. Parallel discussions on the European Defence Community arrangements in regard to German arms production arc also proceeding in Bonn between the Federal Government and the three occupying Powers.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that he did say, on the occasion which he indicated, that—
we reached agreement among ourselves which will, we hope, prove to he an acceptable basis for a very early solution of this difficult issue." —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th February. 1952: Vol. 496, c. 1469.]
I take it that he is aware of the fears, both in Britain and France, of too much German re-armament. Will he keep that in mind before any decision is reached upon this matter?

Mr. Eden: All these are questions of balance, and I think the House must face the fact that, unless Germany takes her fair share in the defence of the West, this country and other countries that bear that burden are going to be placed in an economic position of the utmost difficulty.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Will the questions now being discussed at Bonn include the possibility of the Federal German Republic undertaking research into atomic weapons and the production of such weapons?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down. He will realise that it is a question of some importance with which I should like to deal carefully.

Re-education

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much money has been spent since 1945 on re-educating the Germans.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The "re-education" of Germans was carried out in prisoner-of-war camps in the United Kingdom and the Middle East until repatriation was effected during 1947 to 1948. The approximate cost of this work from April, 1946, to the end was £310,000.
Since the end of the war representatives of Her Majesty's Government have worked closely with the German authorities in the re-establishment of a democratic educational system in Western Germany and the restoration of educational and cultural contacts between the two countries. The sterling cost of this work to the British taxpayer from January, 1946, to the end of the last financial year was approximately £1,800,000.

Mr. Hughes: Having spent this £1,800,000, are the British taxpayers now to understand that we are going not through the process of re-educating the Germans but of de-educating the Germans and cancelling out our previous reeducation? Has the Minister come into contact with the new word that has been published in the German Press—the word "reducarmament"?

Mr. Lloyd: The whole purpose of the arrangements which the Government are seeking to make now is to draw Germany into the free Western world, and this work of cultural and educational contacts between the two peoples seems to me to be of very great value towards that end.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that the quickest and the surest way of persuading the masses of the German people that Hitler was wrong is to tell them now that without their help Western civilisation cannot be defended?

War Criminals (Bundestag Resolution)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the resolution adopted by the West German Bundestag, of 8th February, 1952, and referred to in Command Paper No. 8492, in relation to the release of German war criminals; and whether it is now proposed by Her Majesty's Government to release these criminals.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the resolution on war criminals, adopted by the Bundestag on 8th February, 1952, and published in Annex E of Command Paper No. 8492.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Provisions governing the future handling of the problem of war criminals will be included in the contractual agreements now being negotiated with the German Federal Government. In the working out of these provisions, account was naturally taken of the resolution of the Bundestag, as of all other relevant factors. The House will be informed of all the provisions of the agreements when the negotiations have been completed.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that these criminals who committed terrible crimes against humanity during the last war will in no circumstances whatever be allowed to take positions of authority, either in Germany or in E.D.C.?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question deals clearly with the release of German war criminals, and I repeat what I have said. It is not proposed to release war criminals except on the normal expiry of their sentences, or in accordance with procedures which may be agreed for the termination or reduction of their sentences. I repeat that the House will have an opportunity of debating this matter fully before any such proposal can be put into effect.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that Question No. 39 also deals with the Bundestag resolution, and, in view of the terms of that resolution as published in the White Paper, can he give an undertaking that it will not be possible for these released war criminals to be recruited in the German forces of the future, and, perhaps, into Western European forces, to hold command over British troops?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is exactly a matter which should be discussed when the matter is debated in the House.

Mr. Bing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Resolution No. 4 of the Bundestag says that the Bundestag considers it necessary that the war criminals should be released, and are Her Majesty's Government acceding to this demand?

Mr. Lloyd: No. All I said was that the resolution was one of the matters to be taken into account during these negotiations.

KOREA (LAND REFORM)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken through the United Nations to secure that in those parts of South Korea where conditions are now stable a scheme of land reform is initiated; and whether the government of Mr. Syngman Rhee has been informed of the desirability of this step.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In their Report to the Sixth Session of the United Nations General Assembly, covering the period from 7th October, 1950, to 5th September, 1951, the United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea expressed the view that, as a result of the Land Reform Act of 1949, the evils of the system of land tenure previously existing in South Korea have to a large extent already been removed. The Commission consider that this is greatly to the credit of the Government of the Republic of Korea, which, despite the fighting, has pressed on with land reform.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister tell us what were the evils which were removed, to which he referred in his answer?

Mr. Lloyd: If I may give an example of what has happened, by 20th April, 1951, a total of about 1,700,000 acres had been distributed to about 1,200,000 recipients, each household receiving an average of 1.3 acres.

Mr. Hughes: But as this is Bolshevism, could the Minister tell us what the war has been about?

TRIESTE (TALKS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the results of the talks on Trieste.

Mr. Eden: The talks are still proceeding. I should, therefore, prefer to make no further statement at present.

Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these talks will

be completely unprejudicial to the final settlement as regards Trieste? Secondly, if that is so, is he taking this opportunity to impress upon the Italians the desirability of attempting to reach full agreement with Yugoslavia over that final settlement through negotiation?

Mr. Eden: The reply to the first part of the supplementary is "Yes." As to the second part, I hope very much that both sides will deal with this matter directly with each other. It is the only way by which a reasonable settlement can be effectively arrived at.

Mr. Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Yugoslavs are being kept fully informed about the talks and that they are not simply handed Press communiqués?

Mr. Eden: We are keeping them informed, but it is difficult to inform other people until we have reached a stage of agreement ourselves. We hope that agreement will be reached in the next few days, and if that is so we shall, of course, give advance information to the Yugoslav Government on the results of our work.

OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the committee of inquiry into the overseas information and broadcasting services has yet reported; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 5th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) on this subject.

Mr. Davies: I have seen that reply, but may I ask the Minister whether this matter is being treated as one of urgency? The debate on this subject took place five or six weeks ago and the committee has been sitting since then. When can we expect some information?

Mr. Lloyd: The important fact is that this inquiry should be carried out satisfactorily and thoroughly, as my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Was it not extremely foolish to make these serious


cuts in the information services and then hold the inquiry afterwards? Why was the inquiry not held first to see whether the cuts were needed?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter which was fully debated during the debate on the subject.

Mr. John Profumo: Could my right hon. and learned Friend indicate why the Socialist Government did not hold an inquiry last year before the cuts were made?

TANGIER (RIOTS)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. LESLIE HALE: ,—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what report he has received from Her Britannic Majesty's representative on the Control Commission at Tangier with reference to recent events concerning the Istiqlal Party; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Hale: In asking this Question, may I point out that "Istiqlal" should be "Isliqtal"?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the recent riots which took place in Tangier on the anniversary of the Treaty of Fez which the Istiglal Party observed as a day of mourning. As the hon. Member will be aware, the riots broke out in the afternoon of that day, 30th March. I regret to say that some fatal casualties, damage to property and looting took place. The evidence so far available on the number of deaths is conflicting, but I understand that either six or eight Moors lost their lives and a Swiss national subsequently died as a result of injuries received.
A factual inquiry is being held into the causes of the disorders by persons not connected with the Administration, who will report to the Committee of Control. Until this inquiry is completed, it would be improper for me to pass judgment on what happened or to decide what further action it may be appropriate to take.

Mr. Hale: Who will make the inquiry, and how many Arabs will be on the Commission of Inquiry? Would the right hon. Gentleman also inquire what has

been the attitude over the last few months of the British representative on the Control Committee, who appears to have agreed to—and, indeed, propounded—many of the infringements of liberty of speech and many of the acts of censorship—indeed, for example, the cutting out of the French Foreign Minister's own newspaper in Tangiers—which have led to the unrest which, unfortunately, has resulted in some incidents?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not, of course, agree with the inference that the hon. Member draws, but those are quite different matters. If he puts Questions in regard to them on the Order Paper, I will seek to answer them. Regarding the first part of the question, inquiries will be conducted by certain officers who have been appointed by agreement among the members of the Committee.

Mr. Hale: How it is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot agree to an inference if he does not know the facts and, if he does know the facts, why does he not answer the question?

Mr. Lloyd: I should have thought that to have agreed to an inference before knowing the facts would have been somewhat foolish.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent events in Tangier, he will take steps to summon a meeting of the signatories of the Act of Algeciras.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that Act specifically and in the most solemn terms recognises the suzerainty of His Most Cherifian Majesty The Sultan, and does he really think that the surrounding of the Palace by machine guns and the ordering of the Sultan to consent to sign Dahirs under the threat of machine guns is a recognition of his suzerainty, and is it really the attitude of Her Majesty's Government that they are making no protest about this sort of thing?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question refers in particular to recent events in Tangier, and it would be better to await the result of the inquiry to which I have referred before deciding on the action to be taken.

ANGLO-SOVIET TREATIES

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what treaties are still in existence between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Since the full list of treaties in force between Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The principal Treaties in force are: the Temporary Commercial Agreement of 1934; the Treaty providing for an alliance in the late war against Germany and for Collaboration and Mutual Assistance, concluded in 1942; and the Trade and Finance Agreement and the Payments Agreement of 1947.

Mr. Davies: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him if he thinks that European Defence Community commitments are compatible with the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and the 20-year Treaty, by means of which we undertook not to take part in any coalition directed against the U.S.S.R.?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the Atlantic Pact and other subsequent agreements composed at Lisbon are directed only against aggression, and not in any way against the Soviet Union?

Following is the list:
Notes Exchanged on the occasion of the Resumption of Diplomatic Relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
London 20th December, 1929.
Moscow. 21st December, 1929.
Temporary Fisheries Agreement:
London. 22nd May, 1930.
Temporary Commercial Agreement:
London, 16th February, 1934.
Parcel Post Convention:
London, 19th April, 1934.
Exchange of Notes concerning the Reciprocal Notification of Arreqst and Imprisonment:
Moscow, 14th July, 1937.
Treaty for an Alliance in the War against Hitlerite Germany and providing also for Collaboration and Mutual Assistance thereafter:
London, 26th May, 1942.

Agreement concerning the Establishment of a Direct Radiotelephone Service (modified by Exchange of Notes dated 19th April and 9th July, 1946):
Moscow, 23rd September, 1944.
Exchange of Notes constituting a Payments Agreement:
Moscow, 27th December, 1947.
Trade and Finance Agreement:
Moscow, 27th December, 1947

N.A.T.O. (FRENCH RE-ARMAMENT)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the Order of the Day, approved by the French National Assembly of 19th February, 1952, and referred to in Command Paper No. 8492, which declares that the French contingents available in Europe, and put at the disposal of the European Defence Community, should at all times be at least equal to those of any other member of the Defence Community, and should not exceed France's financial or manpower capacity; and what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's representatives taking part in the joint negotiations on the implementation of these conditions.

Mr. Eden: I am aware of the recommendation of the French National Assembly to which the hon. Member refers. The size and scope of the German armed contribution to the European Defence Community in relation to contributions by other countries who will be members of the Community is being discussed in the Paris Conference at which Her Majesty's Government are represented by an observer. The question of sending instructions to Her Majesty's Government's representative does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Government will support the French National Assembly in its request that the French armed forces shall be superior to the German armed forces?

Mr. Eden: That is primarily a point for the French Government. According to my present information, the proposals of the Paris Conference will effectively meet what the French Government desire.

Mr. I. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representative at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to urge upon the United States Government the desirability of equipping the six French divisions, which have no arms, before arming any German forces.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The supply of American equipment to French forces is a matter for agreement between the French and United States Governments.

Mr. Dalton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept the principle that the re-armament of France should precede the re-armament of Germany?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I do accept it, but I think that it is a matter that the French Government can be left to handle with the American Government themselves.

Mr. Mikardo: Surely it is important to Her Majesty's Government as well, because if the Germans are re-armed before the French no one in the world will believe the story that the E.D.C. is anything but a facade and a cover for German re-armament?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there can be no German re-armament at all until the E.D.C. negotiations are concluded, in which the French are the principal participating party, so I do not think that his supplementary has any foundation in fact at all.

Mr. Shinwell: While the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in stating that this is a matter between the French Government and the United States Government, will he not agree that it is exceedingly important that the French divisions should be equipped as speedily as possible?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; indeed I agree. There is, of course, a bilateral arrangement in existence between the French and United States Governments, and we naturally wish it to take place at the most rapid pace possible. However, I must maintain that it is the responsibility of the British Foreign Secretary to reply for British foreign policy and not for that of our Allies, however intimate they may be.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: In view of the basic divergence of opinion on every single

aspect of foreign policy among the Opposition which has been revealed today, will my right hon. Friend consider lending them a co-ordinating Minister?

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE, MOSCOW

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he gave to Her Majesty's Embassy at Moscow to attend and observe the proceedings at the recent International Economic Conference.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This Conference was not organised on a Governmental basis, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow was, therefore, instructed that it would not be appropriate to accept any invitation to attend the proceedings. No such invitation was in fact received.

Mr. Hughes: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what was his objection to sending observers to this Conference? [HON. MEMBERS: "There were some."] Well, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if the Government have received a full report of what happened at the Conference, and, if so, where it was obtained?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as the question of observation is concerned, I understand that no facilities were provided for the diplomatic Missions in Moscow to observe the proceedings, and the Secretary-General of the Preparatory Commission stated in his opening speech at the Conference:
The aim was and is to convene a conference of private persons, and not of representatives of Governments.

Mr. Logan: Is it not a fact that those persons from this country at the Conference had no authority, and were only observers at that Conference?

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: They were "merchant venturers."

BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (CONTROL)

Lieut. - Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the transfer of responsibility for the internal control of the Broadmoor institution from the Ministry of Health to the Home Department.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Responsibility for the management of Broadmoor was transferred from the Home Office to the Board of Control by Section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. As at present advised, Her Majesty's Government are not aware of any reason which would justify them in proposing a reversal of the decision so recently taken by Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Prime Minister amplify the statement made by the Minister of Health yesterday, part of which seemed to prejudge the very issue which the Committee of Inquiry is to investigate, by giving an assurance that the long series of warnings submitted to the appropriate authorities by the Prison Officers' Association will be taken into account by the Committee of Inquiry; and will he give a further assurance that the Home Office continues to be responsible for the protection of innocent people against violence, whether on the part of criminal lunatics or any other section of the population?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that all relevant matters comprised within the scope of their reference, which has not yet been announced, will be taken into consideration by the Committee. But that does not in any way preclude the general consideration of the whole position by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Peter Remnant: Can the Prime Minister say whether the possibility of a transfer of responsibility will be within the terms of reference to the Board of Inquiry?

The Prime Minister: I think that is a decision which is obviously one for the Government.

Mr. Remnant: Can a recommendation be made by the Board of Inquiry?

The Prime Minister: I have not the terms of reference in my mind at present; I might, therefore, mislead the hon. Gentleman if I tried to guess.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: Can the Prime Minister say whether, following the transfer from the Home Office to the Board of Control, the security arrangements at Broadmoor were in fact changed, or whether they substantially remain the same?

The Prime Minister: I cannot pretend to be conversant with all these details, but the whole matter is to be examined by an inquiry.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister when he anticipates instituting his proposals for the reform of the composition and powers of the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government intend to call an all-Party conference on this subject as soon as they have taken the necessary measures to deal with the more urgent tasks with which the present economic situation of the country confronts them.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Prime Minister give us any idea when that is likely to take place, or can we take it that this promise, as contained in the Election programme, will eventually be forgotten, as have all the other promises that have been made by the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that is an impudent supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: While the Prime Minister may think that impudent, is he not aware of the fact that the mass of the people of the country know it to be true, and is he not further aware of the fact that the borough council elections will prove it?

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the Prime Minister's somewhat bad-tempered reply to my hon. Friend animated by the election news today?

ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND (ECONOMIC RELATIONS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the economic relationships between England and Scotland, together with other important issues.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows, we intend to recommend that a Royal Commission should be appointed. Consideration of its scope must await the report of the Committee presided over by


Lord Catto which is investigating the economic and financial relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that this was another promise contained in the Election programme of the Tories? I am taking this out of his own Election manifesto. Is it not time that the Government implemented some of their promises instead of breaking their promises?

KOREAN TRUCE TALKS (REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS)

Mr. C. R. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make on the present Korean negotiations for an armistice.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The United Nations Command have now made public the terms of the offer which the United Nations negotiators made to the Communists on 28th April in the Korean armistice talks.
The United Nations Command, for its part offered to agree that the armistice provisions should make no reference to the reconstruction or rehabilitation of airfields. As the House will remember, this is a question to which the United Nations Command has hitherto attached very great importance, in view of its responsibility for the security of United Nations forces after the conclusion of an armistice.
It has nevertheless been found possible to abandon our insistance on this point, provided a satisfactory solution can be obtained on the other outstanding questions. This proves once again the willingness of the United Nations Command to stretch the limits of concession to the utmost in their earnest desire to reach a just and honourable settlement.
Secondly, the United Nations Command have expressed their readiness to accept the Communist nomination of Poland and Czechoslovakia for membership of the neutral commission for the supervision of the armistice, provided that the Communists would accept the nomination by the United Nations Command

of Sweden and Switzerland in the same capacity. I think that the House will feel that this solution, to say the least of it, would not be likely to load the scales against the Communists in matters of armistice supervision.
Finally, the suggested solution provides that the United Nations Command would exchange the 70,000 persons approximately who do not refuse to be repatriated, for the 12,000 men of the United Nations Command whom the Communists state they are now holding as prisoners of war.
Following an armistice, the United Nations Command would still be willing to permit any suitable international body, or joint Red Cross teams together with observers from both sides, to interview persons held by the United Nations Command who have indicated that they would physically oppose repatriation. If it were then found that there were additional persons who would not so object, these would be promptly returned to the Communists.
In this connection I think the House will wish to hear briefly how the investigation was conducted which established that only about 70,000 out of the 132,000 prisoners of war held by the United Nations Command would not violently object to repatriation.
Written notices were posted in the prisoner of war camps, and announcements were made over the public-address system there, to the effect that all prisoners were to be interrogated by impartial United Nations Command personnel to decide who would want to be repatriated and who had compelling reasons for refusing repatriation.
The extreme importance of the decision and its likely effects on prisoners' families within Communist territories were emphasised. The fullest publicity was given to an official statement issued by the Communist authorities on 4th April offering an amnesty to all returned prisoners of war whatever their conduct in camp.
Prisoners were then interrogated individually and privately by interrogators carefully selected by the United Nations Command, and only those who expressed their determination to resist repatriation were excluded. There was thus no


question of pressure being put on prisoners not to return.
In view of the scrupulous fairness of this interrogation, and of the offer made by the United Nations Command to the Communists for subsequent re-checking by independent bodies with Communist observers present, I am sure the House will feel that the United Nations Command has had no alternative but to resist the forced repatriation of Communist prisoners of war who have shown such a strong determination to remain in the free world.
I will not dwell on the practical difficulties of forcibly repatriating more than 62,000 men, many of whom could be expected to attempt suicide on the way. It would, I think, clearly be repugnant to the sense of values of the free world to send these men home by force. It would make a deplorable impression on fair and liberal-minded opinion all over the world and would go far to cancel out the effect made on world opinion by the evident firmness of purpose underlying the United Nations resistance to aggression in Korea.
The Communists were invited to consider this offer as a whole and not as a series of proposals, each open to separate discussion. It represents the limit of possible concession. At the same time it is a just offer, which the Communists could accept with confidence, provided they are, as I assume them to be, no less sincere than the United Nations Command in their wish for a settlement of the Korean conflict.
The Communist negotiators have not accepted this offer. They have instead put forward a counter-proposal under which the nomination of the Soviet Union as a neutral nation is withdrawn, but at the same time they have continued to reject the right of prisoners of war to decline repatriation after an armistice.
This is, of course, the essential point of principle on which the United Nations Command are not prepared to compromise. The United Nations Command have shown great patience in explaining and discussing their proposal in further closed plenary sessions.
The time has now come when it is right that the world should know the terms of the United Nations Command's offer and the nature of its reception. The United

Nations Command will, as always, be ready to carry on the meetings with the Communist negotiators and ready to continue the search for acceptable terms for an armistice; but it must be clearly understood that the United Nations Command will not agree to force prisoners of war to be repatriated against their will.

Mr. Attlee: The House is obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. I am sure that it would be quite wrong to force prisoners to go back if they did not wish to go. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether consideration has been given to the very long drawn out nature of these negotiations? Although we are all anxious for an armistice, I should have thought that it was impossible to continue month after month with nothing being done.

Mr. Eden: I find myself in full agreement with what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Now, of course, the differences at issue are narrowed to the particular point of the prisoners, but I think the general sense of the House clearly shows that there is no further concession that we can make on this issue. It is also true that there is no other outstanding point, and, therefore, I hope that wiser counsels—or, should I say, more humane counsels—will prevail with the Communists.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: My right hon. Friend used the figure of 12,000 as prisoners of war who are held by the Communists. Does that include the South Koreans?

Mr. Eden: That is the prisoners of the United Nations Command not including the South Koreans.* I think I ought to add this, that in the screening and investigations of prisoners of war no representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek régime or the Nationalist Government of China took part. I think it is desirable that the House should know that point. It was done with as much scrupulous fairness as possible.

Mr. Mayhew: The House is clearly united that there must be no question at all of the forcible repatriation of prisoners of war, but since after nine months or so the issues have been narrowed from quite important ones to a single point, may I put this to the Foreign Secretary?
*See correction, 8th May, col. 571


We have had considerable experience of this problem in connection with the Polish displaced persons. It is not merely a matter of principle between forcible repatriation or not. There are thousands of people in these conditions, who have genuine reasonable grounds to fear reprisals when they return home. They must not be sent back, but equally there are thousands of people who are genuinely afraid of being sent back owing to false reports and false propaganda and in some circumstances better standards of living where they are. There are certain things which we did—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Then may I ask the Foreign Secretary [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I think this is important and I am trying to be helpful. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the same administrative action can be taken with the Korean prisoners as was adopted for the Polish displaced persons, which went further than the statement he made, and allowed, under safeguards, Communist representatives to address the prisoners, and also the prisoners who have returned to North Korea to come back and tell their friends about their experiences? In this way we increased the number of Poles who went back to Poland.

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member will study my reply, which is a lengthy one and difficult to follow, he will find among the offers made was that there should be representatives from the Communist side who would go and see these prisoners�ž

Mr. Mayhew: As observers?

Mr. Eden: Certainly, and speak to them if they so desire after the armistice. We think it right that the armistice should be agreed first and then there will be full freedom for any investigation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Awbery.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is it not in order for some one from the minority in this House who objects entirely to the Korean war and wants it ended immediately to put a question to the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I was not aware of the hon. Member's views on the subject. I only thought that we had a long statement and a certain number of supplementary questions and that we might pass to the other business of the House.

MALAYA (DECAPITATION)

Mr. S. S. Awbery (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the severing of the heads of bandits in Malaya?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. The incident which gave rise to the photographs, which have appeared in the "Daily Worker," occurred in April, 1951, when a jungle patrol was ambushed by bandits. The officer and corporal were killed and two other members of the patrol were badly wounded. One bandit was shot dead. After the bandits had retired a tribesman, not a Royal Marine, who had acted as a tracker, decapitated the body. The head was brought in for identification.
The photograph which was published was not authorised and should not have been taken. Instructions are being given by the High Commissioner that bodies should not be decapitated for identification, which should be secured by photographs and fingerprints.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly all hon. Members on this side of the House desire to see Malaya achieve nationhood as quickly as possible, but we are also agreed that the methods suggested in the photograph are neither desirable for the promotion of that nationhood nor will help towards its accomplishment, and will he give definite instructions that such methods will not in the future be adopted for jungle warfare?

Mr. Lyttelton: In my answer I have already explained that definite instructions have been given that decapitation is not to take place. I am afraid I shall be in some difficulty in explaining what happened in April, 1951.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Colonial Secretary say that this was a genuine photograph, and is he definitely convinced that it is not a fake?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, it is a genuine photograph.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (STANDSTILL ORDER)

Mr. Anthony Fell: I wish to raise a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the national standstill order enforced from today on the movement of livestock resulting from foot-and-mouth disease notification, and to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to raise a definite matter of public importance, namely, the national standstill order enforced on the movement of livestock resulting from foot-and-mouth disease notification. I find this matter impossible to bring within the limits of the Standing Order on the grounds of urgency. This policy which is being applied by the standstill order arises out of legislation passed by this House, and has been a policy of a long continuing character for many years. Though it is no doubt urgent from the agricultural point of view, I cannot find it urgent from the point of view of the Standing Order.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I wish to raise a matter for information. Is there not a distinction between the standstill orders which we have been accustomed to and which have been part of the law for four years but which were confined to a radius of 15 miles outward, and this entirely new and quite unprecedented order applying to the whole country? It is a standstill order of all the cattle everywhere in the country? That, in my submission, is something entirely new, and its implications, I think, are a matter of very great urgency. It is one thing to say that this policy is worthwhile when it is confined to a small area; it is another to say that the whole cattle trade of the country has to be brought to a standstill.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great care to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I appreciate that a universal standstill order does differ in degree from the normal standstill orders in different parts of the country, but I cannot agree that for the purpose of the Standing Order this action, which is taken in pursuance of legislation passed by this House and is of long standing continuance, falls within the Standing Order.

TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER (PRESS REPORT)

Mr. H. Morrison: I rise to a point of order. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give advice about this matter, and I am not sure whether it is a question of Privilege or whether the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House can say something about it or undertake to look into it.
In today's "Evening Standard" there is the following statement with regard to a White Paper which it is understood will be presented tomorrow. The story says:
The White Paper is due to be published tomorrow. The Political Correspondent of 'Motor Transport' claims that 'according to people who have read it,' the White Paper makes four main proposals.
Then the alleged four main proposals are set out. It is further stated:
Mr. F. F. Fowler, national chairman of the Road Haulage Association, is quoted as stating that the Government's proposals' on long-term policy will provide'"—
for certain matters.
The important point is that this White Paper is to be presented, by Command, to the House of Commons, and we find here a claim that, according to people who have read it, there are certain provisions in it. It has been well known that while facilities are given to the Press within certain limits on the basis of non-publication, the House of Commons and the other place should be the first to have an opportunity of seeing and reading these White Papers.
I desire to ask you whether there is anything you can advise or do about it. If your answer is in the negative, I would wish to ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House whether they will be good enough to make investigations into what appears to be a serious leak and to report to the House the result of their investigation.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to bring me the paper when I was trying to attend to Questions. I am clear that there is no question of Privilege about it. The custom of the House, whereby Ministers judge it courteous to the House to make important announcements here before they make them outside, is a matter of courtesy which has grown into a custom,


a good custom, of the House. Its breach does not raise a question of Privilege. I think the best course I can advise is that the Government should consider what has been said and that, when the matter has been clarified, perhaps there could be a short return to the subject at a later date. That is my best advice on the subject.

The Prime Minister: We will certainly make every inquiry possible into the sources of this leakage, in which we shall welcome any assistance we can receive from any quarter.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the Prime Minister. Obviously the matter should not be pursued at this moment in those circumstances.

Mr. Mikardo: Upon a different but very closely related point of order, may I recall, Mr. Speaker, that I ventured to put to you on Friday last a somewhat similar case in which there was a document which appeared prima fade to be at the disposal of some hon. Members and was only later made available to all hon. Members? It was not possible for you, without fair warning, to consider the matter, but may I now ask when you will be in a position to give your Ruling about it?

Mr. Speaker: I have considered that matter and I am in a position to give my Ruling upon it; I intend to do so tomorrow, if that will suit the hon. Gentleman's convenience.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Arising out of the first Ruling you have just given, if a document has to be presented to the House containing Government policy for the consideration of Parliament, is it not a breach of Privilege for outside persons to have access to the document so that a debate can occur in the public Press long before Parliament has the document itself?

Mr. Speaker: I should not like to give a general Ruling on that matter beyond what I have said. My Ruling today was directed merely to the instance which the right hon. Member brought before me. I do not think in that case any question of Privilege arises, but I do not wish to prejudge what other circumstances might force me to say.

Mr. Bevan: You did make your statement in rather general terms that it was a matter of courtesy and not a breach of Privilege. It has always been understood that, whereas a document may be given to the Press for the purpose of predigestion, no references could be made to it until it was available in the Vote Office. That has always been the rule, so far as I remember, and whenever it has not been done points of order have been raised in the House and Mr. Speaker has usually said that it was a breach of Privilege. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is not a matter for disagreement amongst parties but a matter for the House of Commons. If it were the case that public documents should not be made available to us but should be debated outside first, the position would he most unfortunate.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not the distinction with regard to Privilege whether it is a document which is the property of the House of Commons or a document which is subsequently presented to this House? If a document which is the property of this House is prematurely disclosed, that is a breach of Privilege, but not in the case of a document which is subsequently presented.

Mr. Speaker: That distinction is roughly accurate. I have had to give some attention to this matter to settle the point which was presented to me by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). I am clear that in general circumstances prior disclosure by Ministers is not necessarily a breach of Privilege. I find no case of that. It is an old custom which has been observed. I can conceive of cases where the House has given a definite direction and a breach of it would be a disregard of the orders of the House and therefore a breach of Privilege.

Mr. Julian Snow: May I have your permission to continue the point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) concerning the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), on the standstill Order?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we have passed from that. We cannot go back.

Mr. Snow: With great respect, I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), did get up rather quickly and curtailed discussion on that point.

Mr. Speaker: It is not my fault.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL)

3.57 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to carry out any development consisting of the removal of surface soil from land used for the purposes of agriculture without the grant of planning permission required in that behalf under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
In short, the Bill is designed to stop the spoliation of good farming land which is continuing all over the country at the present time, and particularly in the Home Counties. It does not in way prohibit such accepted trades as the sale of turf or, indeed, the sale of top soil when it takes place in reasonable quantities. Soil is now being taken from good farming land in large quantities and is being used to fill the flower-pots and window-boxes and gardens of the cities. I understand that it is also used on greyhound racing tracks. It cannot be right that good farming land should have its soil filched for such purposes.
I can best explain to the House the reason for the urgency of and necessity for this Bill if I recount what has happened recently in my constituency at Bletchingley. A speculator bought in early February some 46 acres. He proceeded to install a mechanical grab and to remove the surface soil to a depth of about 18 inches. Today he has devasted some 15 acres. On 18th February I got into touch with the Ministry of Agriculture when I learned what was happening. The Agricultural Executive Committee acted with great promptitude and started proceedings, as far as they could, on 22nd February. However, it was not until the 21st April that it was possible to bring this soil pirate to court. It then happened that Mr. William Henry Stevens, who ironically describes himself as a landscape architect, was fined £50 and £3 costs at Oxted Court for failing to comply with the direction made requiring him to cease removing turf and topsoil on land at Bletchingley.
In view of the fact that the speculator in question is making, at a conservative estimate, a profit of £180 per acre on each of the 15-20 acres which he has despoiled, this £50 fine has merely acted as a spur to greater activity. Yesterday I


received a telegram from a neighbouring farmer as follows:
Spoliation of land at Bletchingley continues rapidly. Six lorry loads left in 20 minutes this morning. Lorries still queueing for filling.
The farmer in question continues with a request that action should be taken to end this as speedily as possible. Meanwhile, under the other Act involved, the Town and Country Planning Act, the local council also initiated action, but that has proved even slower and the case will not come into court until 19th May.
I hope I have said enough to explain to the House that the present machinery is undoubtedly too slow and too ineffective to stop this trade, and the Bill which I ask leave to bring forward will therefore make it an offence to remove top soil without planning permission. I should explain that it will be necessary for the penalties to be commensurate with the threat which this trade represents to a basic industry of our country, and on a scale sufficient to take profitability out of continuing to trade after legal action has been taken.
I hope I have proved to the House the urgent need of such a Bill. I have the support of hon. Members of all parties. Let me add that the Bill has a sporting chance of reaching the Statute Book by the end of this Session. I also understand that the intention of this Bill has the approval of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I end by appealing to all in this House who appreciate the need at this moment to see that we use our land effectively, to help to end this squalid traffic.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I rise to oppose this Bill. It seems to me to relate to a matter of principle which may well involve legislation, but it should not be ill-considered legislation. There can be no greater mistake than the casual creation of new crimes. To take a certain bad case and to say that we will have a general law about it, without considering all the spreading results that such a law may have, is the wrong way to legislate and the wrong way to create crimes.
We have been told by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) that already it is an offence under some agricultural Act, that it is already an offence under the Town and Country Planning Act, but that these Measures are too slow. I do not know why the creation of a further crime should create a speeding up of the process. These things want proper consideration. If new crimes are to be made, it is for the Government of the day, after proper consideration, to say, "This thing shall be a crime." With their organisation and machinery they can look into the matter and see, not if it affects one land pirate, but how it affects every other kind of perfectly legitimate proceeding. This cannot be dealt with in a casual private enterprise way of saying, "Here is a thing to which I object; therefore let us make a general crime which makes not only this man a criminal but perhaps also a series of perfectly law-abiding citizens doing perfectly reasonable things who have not even been thought of."
Therefore, I object to this Bill upon the general principle. Let the hon. Member take it to the Government, and if they do not regard their criminal machinery as being sufficient, let them, after due consideration, bring in the necessary Measure. The creating of crime should not be a matter of private enterprise by back benchers.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Crouch, Mr. Champion, Colonel Ralph Clarke, Mr. Philips Price, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Baker White, Mr. Peart, Mr. Deedes, and Mr. Gooch.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL) BILL

"to make it an offence to carry out any development consisting of the removal of surface soil from land used for the purposes of agriculture without the grant of planning permission required in that behalf under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

CLOSURE (MR. SPEAKER'S ACTION)

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the action of Mr. Speaker in accepting a Motion for the closure after calling the honourable Member for Kirkcaldy and before the same had had the opportunity to speak.
I hope it is unnecessary to assure you, Sir, that the Motion has been put down and is being moved in all good faith, without any kind of personal malice, and in the exercise of a right without which the House of Commons could scarcely continue according to its old traditions. I shall endeavour to move it without ill-humour, without any kind of partisanship I hope, and certainly without any party bias. For I can consider nothing more unfortunate, nothing more hostile to the spirit and tradition of the House of Commons than that you, Sir, or any other occupant of the Chair, should become the shuttlecock between the Government and Opposition or between party and party, or that Motions of this kind should be subject to any collective action or party discipline among the various groups and parties which make up the House of Commons.
On the other hand, it would be uncandid to pretend that the Motion has not been put down under a serious sense of grievance which is shared by many hon. Members. Indeed I think it would be wholly improper to put down such a Motion or to ask for time to discuss it unless those who had taken the responsibility of putting the Motion upon the paper and of moving it felt that what was involved was something of substance. It is not for Members of the House of Commons to take an action of this kind on a matter which they themselves consider to be trivial or merely incidental.
In order to see what it is that caused a certain amount of feeling among some Members on the occasion to which the Motion refers, it is necessary to refer to what the Standing Orders provide. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to Standing Order No. 29, paragraph (1), which reads:
After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, ' That the question be now put,' and, unless it shall appear to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House,

or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, 'That the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.
From that it is, I think, clear that you, Sir, except in certain circumstances, have no option or discretion in the matter of a Motion for the Closure. It is not a question whether you consider that the debate has gone far enough, or whether all the available points have already been debated, or any question of that kind—although sometimes that kind of consideration is relevant on another Standing Order to another dilatory Motion—the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Where the Closure is claimed to be moved in that way, you have no option whatever to refuse it except in the circumstances set out quite clearly I think in a way that does not permit of any kind of ambiguity—in the Standing Order itself.
The circumstances which give Mr. Speaker a discretion as to whether he will or not allow the Motion are two: first, if Mr. Speaker considers that the Motion is an abuse of the rules of the House; or second, that without being an abuse of the rules of the House it is an infringement of the rights of the minority. If either of those two circumstances are present, then Mr. Speaker ought not to accept the Motion. I would venture to suggest that there is a third circumstance, although not mentioned in the Standing Order.
I think it is generally accepted—one might say universally accepted—that one of the most important functions of Mr. Speaker is the protection of the rights of an individual private Member against what may be called official Members or combinations of Members. I think it would be conceded that if a Motion for the closure were an infringement of an individual Member's undoubted rights, all Speakers would hold that it was either an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, or both. I think it fair to put that in as a third possible way of putting the matter, although it is not specifically so put in the Standing Order.
I concede at once that I have no basis whatever for my Motion unless I can satisfy the House and, with submission, satisfy you, Sir, that the acceptance of the Motion for the Closure on this occasion was an infringement of that


Standing Order within those limitations. I hope to satisfy the House and you that in the circumstances to which the Motion refers the acceptance of the Closure was, in fact, an infringement of all three, and it is only for that reason that my hon. Friends and I thought it proper to put the Motion down.
In order to see whether it was or was not an infringement of all three or of any one of those circumstances, I hope the House will have patience with me while I refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT recording the incident itself. It is to be found in the Parliamentary Debates published on Thursday, 24th April, 1952, columns 630 and 631, but mainly at column 630. It occurred at about 2 a.m.—that is to say, during an all-night Sitting—on an occasion when, it is not irrelevant to notice, the House was debating a Guillotine Motion. The House was having an all-night Sitting in order to assert its rights —at any rate so my hon. and right hon. Friends considered—to full discussion of matters which the House was called upon to decide. It was an unforunate concomitant circumstance that this incident should have arisen in a context of that kind.
Now, what happened? An Amendment had been moved to the Government Motion on the Guillotine. That Amendment was a new Amendment; that is to say, it related to a part of the Guillotine Motion which up to that point had not been subject to any examination. Up to that point the Amendments and discussion had related to the time allotted in the Guillotine Motion to the Committee stage, and the Amendment then under discussion was the very first Amendment, and I think the only Amendment, which related to the time allotted in the Guillotine Motion to the Report stage. It was felt—and it is clear from the discussion that many hon. Members so felt—that wholly new considerations applied to this Amendment from those which had applied to Amendments discussed up to that point.
The debate on the Amendment was very short. It was after a very short time that the Leader of the House, the Minister of Health, intervened to reply. When he sat down, it was generally felt at any rate on this side of the House that he had not

replied to the points which had been made—certainly not adequately and fully —and a number of Members rose to continue the debate. Now, Sir, I draw your attention especially to the fact—as is quite clear from the OFFICIAL REPORT—that at that moment it had not occurred to anybody that the debate had gone far enough. The Government Chief Whip who subsequently moved the Motion for the Closure, did not think, when the Leader of the House sat down, that there ought to be no more debate; he did not get up then; the idea had not yet occurred to him. And even when a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, and, I think, one or two on the Government benches, had risen to continue the debate, it did not occur to him that the debate had gone far enough.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Silverman: Because I was here. I am assuming that if it had occurred to him at that stage, he would have done it. Others may draw other inferences, but the inference I am drawing, which I submit is not an unreasonable one, is that when the Government Chief Whip thinks the time has come to claim to move the Closure, he claims to move the Closure, and that if he does not claim to move the Closure it is because he does not think the time has yet come to do so. That is the only inference I am inviting hon. Members to accept, I think not unfairly. I infer myself, and I invite the House to infer, from the fact that the Government Chief Whip did not get up at that point, that at that point he did not think of doing so.
When a number of Members got up, it became your duty, Sir, to select one, and you selected my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard). I submit that at that point my hon. Friend had certain rights. He had no right to speak until he was called, but having been called, he was then in possession of the Floor; he had caught your eye, he had been accorded by you the right to address the House. Anything that prevented him from doing so would be an infringement, at any rate, of his rights. Before my hon. Friend had time to open his mouth, the right hon. Gentleman the Government Chief Whip got up and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." I invite the House to realise that nothing


had changed from a few seconds before, when he did not claim any such right, except that you had selected my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy to speak.
That is not all that we now know, because I think it is conceded—I have heard it said—that if some other hon. Member, and especially if some other right hon. Member had been called, the right hon. Gentleman would not have claimed the right to move, "That the Question be now put" at that stage. I think it is quite clear and is not disputed that there had been, as there often is—I am not complaining of it, and I certainly do not dispute it—an arrangement whereby my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) should reply; and later in the proceedings I heard the Government Chief Whip explain that he had not got up to claim to move, "That the Question be now put" immediately that the Leader of the House sat down because he had expected that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock would at that point have risen.
If that is right, what the right hon. Gentleman was doing was this. He was claiming to move, "That the Question be now put," he was claiming to exercise his right to do that, in order to distinguish between one Member of the House and another. It follows quite clearly that if the right hon. Gentleman would not have moved, or claimed to move, the Motion if one Member had been selected by you, but would claim to move it if another Member was selected by you, he was not merely usurping your functions in the selection of speakers, but the moving or the claiming to move, "That the Question be now put," in those circumstances and for those reasons, was a clear abuse of the rules of the House. I should have thought that it was very difficult to come to any other conclusion than that about it.
It is said, and was said by you, Sir, in reply to a point of order on the occasion in question, that it is a very frequent thing for Motions of Closure to be accepted, even while a Member is actually addressing the House; and you, Sir, noted an occasion—I think some of us remember it, too—when a Government Chief Whip moved the Closure at a moment when a fellow occupant of his own Front Bench was addressing the

House. There may be many occasions when such a thing is perfectly proper and perfectly right.
Although I have not been a Member of the House as long as some other Members, I have been a Member very nearly 17 years. I have been a fairly constant attender of the debates, and I have done my best in 17 years, no doubt very imperfectly, to follow our proceedings and understand our business. I have never known, in all those 17 years, any occasion on which an hon. Member who has been called by Mr. Speaker to address the House has been immediately prevented from doing so by the same Speaker accepting a Motion for the Closure before the hon. Member has commenced to speak.
If you put all those things together, one of which you may not have known—the reason which the right hon. Gentleman had for not moving the Motion, the fact that he did not move it when his right hon. Friend concluded his speech, that he did not move it when a number of people got up and claimed the right to speak but moved it only after you, Sir, had selected the next speaker—they amount to an abuse of the rules of the House, to an infringement of the rights of minorities, and certainly to an infringement of the undoubted right of my hon. Friend, who had been called to speak, to address the House.
One other thing, and then I have finished. Of course, had there been some kind of unofficial arrangement between the two Front Benches that the discussions should at a particular moment cease, which arrangement was not known to occupants of the back benches, and if the Standing Order and its procedure were being used merely to give effect to an unofficial arrangement of that kind between the two Front Benches, then I think I should be right in saying that if you had known of any such thing, you would not have accepted the Closure Motion and would not have regarded that as an appropriate use of the procedure under Standing Order 29.
One can imagine what harm it would do to the prestige and dignity of the House if arangements of that kind were made, if in pursuance of them Motions for Closure were made and accepted by the Chair, and we should then all solemnly troop through the Division


Lobbies with the Whips on in order to vote against what the Front Benches had agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I had no intention of intervening in the discussion, but I think that I ought to clear one matter out of the way, as I am the only person who can give evidence upon it. It is to say quite categorically that I had no approach made to me by either Front Bench in this matter and that there was no question of any accommodation between them. Their attitude towards one another was not at all that of fellow conspirators. If hon. Members will excuse the expression, it was more like that of Kilkenny cats. I should say that if they were not at daggers drawn, they were at least at arm's length.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for that intervention, which, of course, I accept at once and without question. Indeed, I prefaced this part of what I had to say by saying—I certainly intended to say it, and I think I said it—that I did not suppose you had any knowledge of such circumstances, nor do I know whether any such circumstances obtained. I was putting the point forward purely hypothetically, and I said that if that had been the situation and if you had had knowledge of it, you would certainly have regarded it as an abuse of the Standing Order and would not then have accepted the Motion as you did. Of course, since you did not know anything about it and since it may not even have been the case, the argument can only be hypothetical and academic.
I hope that hon. Members, whether they agree with me or not, will agree that I have put the matter fairly and without passion. I have tried to be fair to the facts as I understand them to be, and I hope I have not imported any undue heat into the matter.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. J. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston): I have associated myself with this Motion because, in the surrounding circumstances of that early morning, I consider that a most unfair decision and judgment was exercised. I have no personal antagonism, because, Mr. Speaker, when you were nominated for the Chair I had such a high regard for your character and fairness that I sat in the House and did not cast any vote at

all. I felt that while I could not vote for you, I was not prepared to oppose you as against the other nominee for the Chair.
On the occasion when this issue arose. I could not put it into a completely separate compartment from things happening in the debate and in the House. On that evening, every time the Whip moved that the Closure be applied, there was not a single occasion on which you, Mr. Speaker, said that the matter had not been discussed fully enough and refused to accept the Motion. There has been a growing tendency in this House, especially in Committee, in my estimation, for the Chair to become more the servant of the party than the servant of the House, and because of that I resented it.
I do not apply that to one party; I apply it to both sides. Whoever is the Government of the day, the Whip, in order to facilitate business, is inclined to ride roughshod over the private Members of the House and become rather a party servant than the servant of the House. On that evening, I thought it was carried to an extreme degree, and I agree with all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
I thought that, when you had called my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard), the Whip suddenly sprang to attention like a sergeant-major on the parade ground—or as if a pin had been inserted into the lower part of his body, or as if he had wakened from a dream—and moved the Closure. I thought that in common decency you would have said you were not prepared to accept the Motion for the Closure and, the speech being of short duration, you would have asked for the Motion to be moved again. I was incensed that that was not done; I was incensed at the growing encroachment on the rights of private Members which I have seen, and at the Whips taking unto themselves too much power and exercising too much power over individual Members. It becomes the duty of private Members to resist what they conceive to be an encroachment on their rights as private Members.
With the best feeling in the world for you, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair, I am bound to say that I thought that, on the


evidence of that night, you acted in an unjust manner to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. I say further that had it been an hon. Member opposite—I ask them to accept this—I would have moved in the same direction. I regret the necessity for associating myself with a Motion of this kind, but, as time has gone by, I have had no regrets, and I think it essential for the protection of hon. Members and of their rights and liberties, that this matter should be voiced and that the Chair should always remember that it is the servant of the House and not of any party in the House.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): I put my name to this Motion and I wish to add a few brief sentences to that has been said. During the debate on the Guillotine, when this incident arose, statements were made, with the support of undisputed figures, that showed there had been an increasing use of the instrument of the Closure during this Parliament. Indeed, in this Parliament the Closure has been used much more frequently than we have known in recent Parliaments. In my view, it was partly the increased use of the Closure which led to this incident and to this Motion.
At the time of the discussions which took place in the Select Committee on Procedure, which sat in 1945-46, reference was made to this matter by the Speaker at that time, who reported to that Select Committee and indicated that if the Closure were to be very much more frequently used, it was bound to lead to difficulties for the Chair.
I think it is well known to hon. Members who were present during debates on the Guillotine Motion and in previous weeks that at the time when the Closure had been moved on a number of occasions there had been a considerable amount of noise in the House. I have no doubt that is a very frequent occurrence on such occasions, but there were also a great number of points of order raised at the time by hon. Members asking about the circumstances in which the Closure was being moved and accepted. I think everyone must agree that it is a useless and hopeless way of raising such matters to raise points of order at the time the Closure has been accepted

because when Mr. Speaker has accepted the Closure, it is not right to discuss his decision taken at that time. Therefore, if an hon. Member wishes to raise such a matter, the only way he can do so is by putting down such a Motion as this.
I submit that it would be dangerous for our procedure if there were a repetition of the incidents which occured on that evening, and that the only open way in which such a matter can be brought to the attention of the House is for it to be discussed in this fashion. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that an error of judgment had been committed, and therefore I put my name to this Motion, and I support it today.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: No one can deny the right of hon. Members to raise this matter and I, for one, do not deny the moderation with which they have stated their case. Incidentally, there seem to be two cases, that raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) directly due to your action, and that of the other hon. Members or, the use of the Closure and the power of the Whips.
I do not deny the right of any hon. Member to raise these matters any more than one can deny the right of any hon. Member to raise a question of Privilege, but, just as it is agreed that raising questions of Privilege lightly and inadvisedly may do injury to the Privileges of this House, so I believe that the raising of this matter today is playing with fire. Everything in our Parliamentary democracy depends upon the dignity of the Chair, which means not only respect for the Chair by individual Members, but also the dignity and the majesty and the solemnity displayed by a holder of your office.
If the House gets into the way of frequently putting down Motions criticising your behaviour—I am not speaking, of course, individually—criticising Mr. Speaker's behaviour, inevitably it will end in a cheapening of the respect paid to the holder of your office. I hold the view that either we trust Mr. Speaker and want to keep him and maintain the dignity and respect in which he is held, or we want to get rid of him. If we want to get rid of him,


a solemn and proper Motion should be put down to that effect. But a policy of pinpricks can do nothing but harm.
For that reason, I deeply regret the action of hon. Members opposite who put down this Motion. I do not regret it from a party point of view, but from the point of view of, I hope, a good House of Commons man. I issue this warning to the House: a policy of constant criticism and constant sniping at what you, Sir, do, or at what is done by the occupant of the Chair, can do nothing but harm to the institution which every single person in this House holds in the deepest respect and veneration.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I do not intend to speak for many minutes, but as one who was present on the occasion of the incident to which the Motion relates, I feel that I ought to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard). In reply to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), I would say that there is no intention on the part of my hon. Friends and myself constantly to put down Motions criticising the conduct of the Chair. I would, however, remind him that the last occasion on which that was done was when a Motion was moved by the hon. Member's own right hon. and hon. Friends regarding the conduct of Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the last Parliament. We did not dispute their right to do so.
I am certain that on this occasion it was only because they felt that it was the culmination of a series of incidents which have taken place in the course of this Parliament that my hon. Friends put this Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Nicholson: I did at that time disapprove of the action of my own party quite as strongly. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member did not say so."] I regretted it. Of course I accept the hon. Member's statement that there is no intention on his part or on the part of his hon. Friends to be constantly putting down Motions, but it is on all fours with bringing up questions of Privilege—once it is started it becomes a habit, and I am not concerned about which side does it. It is a bad habit.

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps that is a bad habit which the hon. Member might slip into, but in that matter he can speak only for himself and not for other hon. Members on this side of the House.
It is true to say that the incident with which this Motion is concerned was the culmination of earlier events. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has quoted to the House in a previous debate the number of occasions on which the Motion "That the Question be now put," had been accepted by the Chair both in Committee and in the House, and has proved conclusively that the number of occasions on which such a Motion had been moved far outstripped anything which this Parliament or any other in the past six or seven years had approved.
One cannot forget the action of the Patronage Secretary on that occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, who cannot be accused by anyone of wasting the time of the House, and who had not even spoken during the whole course of the night and early morning, rose to make a speech. The Patronage Secretary, without any consideration for the position of my hon. Friend, rose to move the Closure Motion.
The reason the Motion which we are now discussing is on the Order Paper is the fact that you yourself, Sir, had called on my hon. Friend to address this House. The acceptance of the Closure Motion immediately you had called on my hon. Friend to speak was resented by nearly everyone present in the House at the time. The Motion now before the House was the outcome of that resentment. One is sorry that this action has had to be taken, but it was the only course open to my hon. Friends.
I am certain that I speak for every Member on this side of the House in saying that we will do everything in our power to uphold the dignity of Mr. Speaker and of this House of Commons. But I am certain we shall also expect that Mr. Speaker will safeguard the rights of Members, and that we shall never see in this House in the future the occupant of the Chair, having called upon a back bencher to address the House, being met with a Closure Motion by the Patronage Secretary, whatever Government may be in office.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I wish to intervene briefly because it is very necessary for the House to address its mind to what are the real issues in this matter. They have been differently represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) presented perfectly correctly what are the issues in this matter, but the two hon. Members who followed him, the hon. Members for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and Devonport (Mr. Foot), both made entirely different cases.
The hon. Member for Shettleston really made a general complaint that the Closure had been accepted on that occasion, and said that the matter had not been fully and properly discussed. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made it perfectly clear that that is not really one of the issues in this matter.

Mr. McGovern: I did not say that. I said that Mr. Speaker had accepted the Motion and that I thought he ought to have waited, having called on my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard) and have then asked for the Motion to be moved again.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member said that there was involved the question whether there had been adequate discussion or not. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne rightly said that that was not one of the issues. The hon. Member for Devonport really made a general attack on the use of the Closure, which did not seem to me relevant to this discussion.
The point, which was correctly stated by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, was whether there had been any infringement of the rights of a minority. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who rose to speak, is a Member of the party opposite and does not himself represent a minority. Therefore, the question was whether the views of the party opposite had been expressed on that occasion. No hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has for a moment suggested that the views of the Opposition had not been made known on that occasion. Therefore, the point whether there had been any infringement of the rights of minorities is clearly disposed of, because no unexpressed minority existed on that issue at that point.

Mr. S. Silverman: That is not quite what I said. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that I did say that the question under Standing Order No. 29 has nothing whatever to do with the question whether the matter has been adequately discussed or not. I did say that; it is the right view. But in the course of setting out the circumstances, I pointed out that the Amendment on which we were engaged at the time had had a very short run indeed, and that many Members on this side of the House felt that the arguments put forward had not been answered and that there had not been adequate discussion. I agree that that might not be relevant now.

Mr. Marlowe: I was dealing only with the question of the infringement of the rights of minorities.
The point which the hon. Member has now mentioned relates to the other matter which he said was in issue; that is, whether what was done on that occasion was an abuse of the processes of the House. It would be such an abuse if a Closure Motion were accepted after virtually no discussion of the matter before the House. No evidence has been produced on this occasion that any argument was left unstated the voicing of which was thereby precluded by acceptance of the Motion. As no evidence has been produced, it follows that there can have been no abuse of the processes of the House.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: I do not intend to give way. The issues have been correctly stated but the case has not been made out. I hope that in those circumstances the House will not think it necessary to proceed further with the Motion.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for raising this matter. I think he knows that I had some apprehension about the rightness of his action. I did not put my name to this Motion, and would not do so, because I did not see the incident and, indeed, because I am not in full agreement with my hon. Friend on the point as he has put it.
I think that he regrets, as we all regret, that the rules of this House make it necessary for us to use a sledge hammer for this purpose—and that there is nothing else which can be done—instead of our being able to adopt some more sensible method of raising such an important procedural point. The whole House will, I think, regret the refusal of the Leader of the House to find time for this Motion straight away. That has meant that this Motion which, although in its terms is a censure on the Chair, was never intended as censure in that sense, but has to be used in that sense because it is the only method available, has remained on the Order Paper for 10 days without discussion.
May I put the position of back bench Members in this matter? I do not want to pursue the facts, but I personally have put points of order. I have raised a whole series of these points. On one occasion I asked your leave, Sir, or it may have been the leave of another occupant of the Chair—frankly I have not searched the records for this and I do not for one moment challenge the Ruling which was given—to call attention to the fact that the Closure was apparently about to be moved by the Government Chief Whip; and I asked whether it was possible to raise a point upon it before it was moved. The Chair ruled that that was impossible, and I do not challenge that for a moment.
On another occasion, immediately after the Closure had been moved, I sought to raise a point of order to see whether it was right to accept it in the circumstances. The Ruling was that it could not he raised after the Closure had been moved. In other words, no point of order can be put at any stage on the moving of the Closure in the course of the debate.
I do not want to make any reflection on any occupant of the Chair, but I believe that in the last few months I have heard one observation from the Chair more frequently than I ever heard it during the preceding seven years. Whenever we have raised a point of order, the tendency has been for the discussion to be terminated by the occupant of the Chair with the observation, "If the hon. Member does not agree,

he can put down a Motion. "That has been said time and again. I do not challenge it, but I do say that if that is said often enough, perhaps when one does feel aggrieved the temptation to put down a Motion becomes a little pressing.
We are therefore in this dilemma. My hon. Friends and I are told that we cannot raise a point of order before the Closure is moved, and we cannot raise it after it has been moved; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) sought to raise it after the Division had been called, he again was told that no useful purpose would be served.
Now we have the Motion of my hon. Friend, and, after all, there is a personal issue here, although I do not say for a moment that it prompted my hon. Friend to move this Motion. But two hon. Members of this House have been suspended from the service of the House over questions arising at the time the Closure was moved. My hon. Friend was in fact suspended by a Ruling that he was on his feet when the Chairman was on his feet and that he so remained on his feet; whereas a week later I was the victim of a Ruling that, because I had not risen to my feet when the Chairman was on his feet and had not made my intention clear that I desired to intervene, I lost my chance to intervene.
We are therefore faced with this genuine dilemma, and I say that with all sincerity. I have listened to the speeches of other hon. Members who, I believe, spoke sincerely; in fact, I believe that everyone wishes to speak sincerely on this point. I do not think anyone wishes for one moment to challenge or undermine the position of the Chair. I am sure that was never in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, nor do I think he will try to force a Division on this Motion. Had the Leader of the House given time to finish it, the matter could have been disposed of much more easily and in the same spirit as that in which I hope it will be disposed of today.
I believe that the Ruling which you gave, Mr. Speaker, was technically right and clearly within the rules, and that my hon. Friend is wrong in his Motion in saying that you were out of order in doing what you did—

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not say for a moment that what was done cannot be supported by a literal reading of the Standing Order. What I am saying is that it is sometimes unwise to do what one may have a perfect right to do.

Mr. Hale: I am now in complete agreement with my hon. Friend, because that was much what I proposed to say. I would, with respect, suggest that it may not occur to the Chair that, when an hon. Member is called by the Chair to address the House and then his speech is immediately terminated, it may convey to people who do not know the rules of this House an imputation upon the hon. Member and he may get reported a little unfairly in the local newspaper. It may convey that the hon. Member appeared to be disorderly, or to be about to make observations likely to be disorderly, and so on. It does seem to me that the summary termination of a speech in the first sentence or so may be a very real hard-ship—

Mr. Silverman: Or before a word has been spoken.

Mr. Hale: Or, as my hon. Friend has said, before a word has been spoken. There was a previous instance where a few words had been spoken.
I venture to say also that it seems to me there ought to be some other procedure whereby we might, with the respect we owe to the Chair and the respect we owe to you, Sir, make representations on matters of this kind, about which I do say with sincerity there has been some feeling over these weeks. It has been said that there has been a tendency to accept the Closure time after time after a shorter interval than usual, and there has been a tendency to accept the Closure more often than it has been accepted in recent times, as, indeed, is shown by the figures. It has been accepted 37 times in this Parliament, which is as many times as it was accepted in the whole of the last Parliament, and it has never been refused.

Mr. Marlowe: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the number of times the Closure may have been accepted in this Parliament and the Parliament before, is he including the number of times it was accepted in Committee upstairs?

Mr. Hale: Oh, no certainly not.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: I myself heard it refused three times in one morning. It was on a Friday morning on Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Hale: I am now, of course, referring to the action of the Government Chief Whip in moving the Closure. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) should know that. We have kept a fairly high standard up to now and I have tried not to enter into the realms of controversy. I should have thought that every hon. Member knew that what we are talking about is a Motion by the Government Chief Whip. I am trying to put this in as temperate a manner as possible.
I consider the whole procedure is grossly unfair to you. Mr. Speaker. I do not think the Chair ought to have to be challenged in this form in order to raise a procedural point. We ought to try to find some method by which it would be possible to make representations to the Chair on matters of importance affecting the rights of private Members without having to go through this archaic procedure.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: The hon. Member can always write.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), who has not the courtesy to rise to his feet, but of whose interjection I must take notice, says that I can always write. I did not know that. Quite frankly, I consider that for me to write to the Chair on a matter affecting the whole House would be discourteous. I may be wrong and if I am, I shall welcome the information. But I should have thought that it would be almost as monstrous a thing for me to venture to write to you, Mr. Speaker, and, from my limited knowledge and experience of this House to make observations about procedure, as it would be for me as an advocate to write privately to a judge to tell him what I thought about my client's case. I may be wrong and, if I am, I shall welcome the information

4.59 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I do not think it necessary for me to say very much on this occasion. I had hoped, as I indicated last Thursday, that perhaps the Motion might have been withdrawn. But as soon as it was clear


that that was not the case the Government felt they must find time for the Motion, because, as has been rightly pointed out, it is the only way open to hon. Members to make any criticism they choose to make of the Chair.
I am, however, still sorry that the discussion has had to take place at all. I have listened carefully to what has been said, but these are matters very much of opinion because, you, Mr. Speaker, have. by the Standing Order, been given the full discretion as to whether or not you accept the Closure Motion. It is accepted in a variety of circumstances, sometimes to make sure that what has been debated all day shall not be made unfruitful by continuing after the clock shows us that the time for the debate to end has come. Or it may be moved when one or two hon. Members or more are rising to continue the debate. It may be moved when a Member has actually been called, as was the case on this occasion. Indeed, it has been moved when a Member has actually been in possession of the House and speaking. That has occurred within the last few days.
On all those occasions, Mr. Speaker, you are vested by the House with full discretion. I believe from what I have heard today that the House as a whole feels that you used your discretion correctly on the occasion in question. We are not criticising the use you made of it, but it is your discretion and these are matters of opinion. You have, in fact, occupied the Chair of this honourable House for only a few months, but in that short time I think that all of us, where-ever we sit, have noted how very careful you have been to preserve the rights of minority opinion.
I cannot believe that the occasion of which complaint is made today is one on which you in any way fell short of the high standards you have set yourself. If, therefore, I may be allowed to give any advice to the House, it is to ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in every part of it to support the authority we have vested in you and to show conclusively that so far as this incident is concerned the case has not been proved and that you enjoy our fullest confidence.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Any Motion criticising the Chair is one that must be entered upon after very care-

ful consideration, because the whole of our proceedings here depend on support for the authority of the Chair, and the exercise of that authority always depends on the personal qualities of the Speaker. It is not a matter that can depend on the exact rules that are laid down. The question is the way in which they are interpreted and the spirit of the House.
I was not present on the occasion in question. I have talked with some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who were there and I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT. I myself should not have considered this occasion sufficiently important to have warranted going to the length of putting down a Motion. It is possible to discuss these matters. From time to time objections are taken to the course of debate. I have been here now for nearly 30 years, rather more in opposition than in Government, and I think that there is a natural tendency at first, when we are in opposition, not to realise always how things go.
I have met Members who were surprised that the Closure should be moved when a person was speaking. Of course, that is quite inevitable. It happens constantly in the course of the years. otherwise one could simply go on talking for ever. That happens in some countries overseas where they go in for extensive filibusters and people speak for 20 or 30 hours as they used to in this House at one time.
There has to be a certain amount of give and take in these matters. I do not think that there is a sufficient complaint to warrant putting down a Motion. It is alway difficult for the Chair to decide. I have confidence in Mr. Speaker that he is doing his utmost to preserve the rights of minorities and to conduct the business of this House, which is a very difficult matter. That is why I should always advise my hon. Friends to think carefully before they put a Motion down of this kind. The balance in this House is so very finely adjusted. When it is suggested that we should have some other method, I say that we should look very carefully at that.
This is one of the few assemblies in the world where we manage to get—with friction now and again, but not too much —a Government which, on the whole, gets its business through, and an Opposition which, on the whole, is able to make


its point of view felt. My hon. Friend has raised this matter and has explained his position. I think that probably he has achieved his purpose by ventilating the matter, and I hope that he will withdraw the Motion. If not, I should not support the Motion, and I should advise my hon. Friends not to support it.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I have no desire to address the House at any length for a second time, and I propose in a minute or two to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. The opportunity was taken and I think that in spite of what has been said it was wisely taken. I am certain that nothing that has happened in this debate will have done the slightest harm to the authority of the Chair or to the dignity of the House. A matter which caused considerable anxiety has been fully ventilated, and we may all retain such opinions as we have.
The one new point in these circumstances was, I think, the acceptance of the Closure before a Member called upon to speak had spoken at all. Erskine May himself seems not to have known any more than I did of any other occasion. because in his own reference to the matter he says:
Closure may be moved at the conclusion of a speech or whilst a Member is addressing the House.…
The idea that it could be moved and accepted when a Member had been called and before he had said anything does not seem to have occurred to him. In all the circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

5.7 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdate): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is a short but important Measure introduced to implement the promise made in my statement to the House on 4th February to the effect that the Government would introduce legislation to provide for ploughing-up grants. The Government then announced a grant of £5 an acre on four year old, or older, grassland ploughed up and sown to approved crops. This was a special scheme designed to meet an immediate difficulty by producing extra crops for this harvest.
I have been concerned to find the serious fall in the tillage acreage that has occurred since the end of the war. The last returns in 1951 showed a fall of over 600,000 acres in the United Kingdom compared with the previous year. The announcement of 4th February was intended as a first instalment of the measures designed by the Government to reverse this trend. Although I was speaking late in the sowing season, I expressed the hope that about 500,000 acres in the United Kingdom might still be ploughed up to qualify for grants.
At that time I expressed my confidence that there would be a good response. According to my current information I shall not be disappointed in the result. I believe that the figure of 500,000 acres to qualify for grant will be fully reached. That is the report that I have got from the counties. I cannot give the detailed figures, because we have not yet got accurate returns, either from this country or indeed from Scotland.
This figure corresponds to the estimate of £2,500,000 contained in the Financial Memorandum. The grant is intended to provide an extra incentive to plough up unproductive, permanent grassland or leys left down for four years or longer, and, therefore, past their peak of productivity, and the urgency of the whole problem will be apparent to hon. Members in all parts of the House who


have studied the figures, not only of the fall in the tillage acreage in recent years, but also of the increased pig population during the past 12 months.
The March census showed an increase of a million pigs in England and Wales alone, compared with March of last year, and, here again, although precise figures for Scotland are not available the trend in Scotland has been similar. The House will appreciate that those pigs must be fed, and we certainly cannot expect to increase imports of feedingstuffs. I acknowledge straight away that I am vulnerable on this point, because, about 18 months ago, I was asking the Government of the day to increase the imports of feedingstuffs from overseas. I accept that at once, but the position today is such that I am satisfied that we shall not get any increase in imports of feeding-stuffs.
Therefore, any continued increase in the number of pigs must entail higher home production of coarse grains. I will not attempt at this stage to predict exactly what will he the net increase in tillage this year. As I have said, we believe that 500,000 acres of four-year leys have been ploughed up since 4th February and will qualify for the ploughing grant, and I expect that about half of this will be a net gain.
This will be a very useful result, as a large part of this will be in the form of grain crops. For instance, according to the farmers' forecasts for England and Wales, we believe that we shall get 200,000 acres of extra barley compared with 1951, and this, in terms of feed, will mean a very appreciable addition to our coarse grain supplies for feeding for livestock this winter. It will be sufficient to feed about 600,000 pigs from weaning to slaughter.
Up to this point I have been dealing with what I would term the special scheme produced as a matter of urgency and aimed specially at the harvest of this year. The land had to be ploughed up and sown at once with approved crops. The list of approved crops included not only grains, but potatoes, linseed, peas, beans, fodder beet and certain other fodder crops. There is no need to mention other detailed features, except, perhaps, to remind the House that no single appli-

cation must deal with less than one acre of grassland.
As regards the future, in the course of the Annual Review, we have looked further ahead, and, as I announced on 24th April, the Government have decided to continue the ploughing-up grant. The details, which will not necessarily be the same as for the present scheme, will be the subject of a later announcement, but I can say at this stage that the new scheme will be effective from the date of expiry of the present one; that is, the end of May this year.
The Bill before the House does not deal with any matters of detail, but it empowers Ministers to make schemes for ploughing grants from time to time. The structure of the Bill follows that of the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act—

Mr. George Brown: After we had amended it.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, after it was amended. The Bill gives the Ministers power to make schemes, but each scheme must be approved by Parliament under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
Clause 1 deals with the making of schemes. It is made clear in this Clause that the payment of the grant may depend not only on the ploughing up of land, but also upon the fulfilment of certain other requirements, such as the sowing of approved crops, the rates of grant, the kind of land covered, and the period during which the ploughing must take place will be set out in the scheme. It will be possible, for instance, if it is desired and approved by the House, for one scheme to provide for different rates of grant for different types and kinds of grassland.
Clause 2 lays down that the first scheme will deal with grassland ploughed up from 5th February to 31st May, 1952 inclusive, and subsequent schemes will relate to periods of not more than two years each. Any extension of any scheme will also be limited to two years and will have to be laid before the House and approved by affirmative Resolution.
Clause 3 enables a scheme to attach conditions to the grants, and sets out a number of particular conditions, such as the minimum area to be ploughed up and other conditions necessary to make that particular scheme administratively workable. A scheme may, and normally will, provide that the grant will be paid only


if the ploughing up and other further operations are carried out efficiently, and this has been regarded as common form in the administration of the ploughing grant under previous Acts.
In Clause 3 (4) will be found the provision for the affirmative Resolution procedure for schemes. If, as I hope, this Bill soon becomes an Act of Parliament, the draft Statutory Instruments prescribing the first scheme will be laid before the House very shortly afterwards. I used the word "Instruments" because, although the qualifying conditions for obtaining the grant during the first period will, in general, be the same throughout the country, there will be a separate scheme for Scotland, and this will enable provision to be made for the special administrative problems arising in that country, where, for example, the grants will be paid centrally in Edinburgh, and not, as in England and Wales, by the county agricultural executive committee.
Northern Ireland will be included with England in the first scheme. The Statutory Instrument will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, and this means that when the Scottish scheme is laid before Parliament by my right hon. Friend the House will have an opportunity of considering any special Scottish points.
In general, I think it will be clear that the Bill provides an admirable opportunity for Parliament to discuss any scheme for encouraging the ploughing up of grassland which the Government may propose from time to time, and I therefore hope that the House will approve this small but important Measure and give it an unopposed Second Reading.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are now accustomed to Agriculture Ministers introducing important Measures by saying This is a small Bill," in a somewhat deprecating way which is intended to make sure that they carry the Opposition with them. This may be a small Bill in terms of bulk, but it is an important Bill aimed at an important matter, and containing some important provisions.
I should like, without I hope seeming to be presumptuous, to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the way in which he introduced it in an

extremely lucid but short statement. I should like to think I could be as commendably brief and lucid, but I very much doubt it. He made our task very much easier by the way in which he introduced the Bill.
While I am on this rather happy note, I should also like to congratulate him upon the way in which, in this Bill, he has reduced the need for the number of Amendments the Opposition might have felt inclined to put down, by adopting all those that he could think of in advance. This Bill certainly comes to the House in a rather happier state, as he himself charmingly confessed, than did the recent Agriculture (Fertilisers) Bill, arid we are glad to have had such a notably good effect upon the Minister in such a short time.
I have one regret about debating the Bill at the moment, which is that we are debating it ahead of the general debate, for which I hope the Government will provide facilities, on the Government's food policy as a whole. It is difficult to discuss this Bill and the policy behind it without discussing in general the Government's attitude to a number of problems and the circumstances which surround the Price Review recently announced. We have all agreed, I think rightly, that it is difficult to discuss that without having the White Paper, so that we are in the position of trying to discuss an important element in the general policy without wanting to crab the debate which we hope we shall have by taking the debate too wide.
The Minister has told us of the national need which lies behind this Bill. There is both the fall in the tillage acreage and the increase in the number of pigs—the substantial figure of one million shown by the March returns this year. No doubt what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said on that point brought a glow of warmth to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), since what has happened very largely reflects my right hon. Friend's policy carried out up to the time the present Government took office last November.
In parenthesis, the fact that we had a continuing and very substantial increase in the number of pigs, and also of poultry, right down to that time refutes the frequently used argument of hon.


Gentlemen opposite that there has been a lack of confidence among that very class of livestock keeper. If there is a fall in the tillage acreage at the same time as a rise in that class of livestock, there is obviously a need to make sure that there are adequate feedingstuff products.
The first thing to which I want to draw attention, which the Minister in interests of brevity did not deal with, is not that necessarily some action of this kind is called for, but that what is called for is a real attempt to get home to all those in the industry the nature of the task with which the industry is at this stage faced. We are trying to increase our supplies of meat, wheat and coarse grains, and, at the same time, to maintain supplies of eggs, milk and potatoes. In other words, we are attempting, as we have tried to do since 1947, to cover in advance virtually the whole field. It is impossible to do what I once described at that Box—have a "Box and Cox" arrangement; we cannot go ahead on one thing at the expense of the other; yet we are trying to get an approach over virtually the whole field. The task of the Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, is to get over to the industry that this is so; that it is a major task, which they accepted when they accepted the Agriculture Act, 1947.
At this stage, I hope again without being presumptuous, I should like to compliment the Minister on his courageous words in his recent speech to the Farmers' Club on this very subject. They have accepted an obligation, and because of the magnitude of the task to be carried out their attention ought to be drawn to the obligation they have accepted and the job they have to do.
We on this side have been saying for a long time what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman charmingly observed he has not been saying for quite so long, that the market for the production is as certain as it could be for almost as long ahead as either we can see or any human beings with their short life on earth will see. The availability of supplies from overseas is difficult, and at least uncertain, and our ability in terms of currency to buy it will be so circumscribed for such a long way ahead that we are bound to look more and more to our-

selves for the feedingstuffs for our own livestock. Therefore, there is a great need for this advance over the broad front and for a growing degree of self-sufficiency. We must do all we can to increase our own supplies.
That is the doctrine we have been advancing again and again since 1947. When I had the great pleasure and privilege to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, I must have made hundreds of speeches to county committee conferences and provincial liaison conferences throughout the country urging this doctrine. It is a most important one to get over because it invites the farmers to undertake production and action not wholly attractive to them; it is not a thing to which they are accustomed; it is not something which they are necessarily well-equipped to carry out in terms of personal "know-how," or machines, or capital, or even of land. It needs continuing effort on the part of all of us. It requires a much greater use of the plough, with the consequent effect upon the quality of the grass on the remaining grassland.
The Minister gave figures for the fall in the tillage acreage in the returns last June as 600.000 acres over the previous year. That is a very sad and substantial figure. It is quite easy, and to some extent true, to say that that must indicate that some farmers have not seen the problem in the terms in which it exists for us. Some of them at any rate are clearly not farming, or have not been farming, in accordance with the requirements of the nation.
When a Minister comes to the Despatch Box and charmingly admits that he is vulnerable—by which he means that he has been giving the wrong advice over a long period—the instinctive reaction of the House is to forgive him and to hurry on to the next and somewhat less embarrassing subject. However, I am afraid I am somewhat reluctant to hurry on, because as both I and my right hon. Friend have said again and again, I honestly believe that to a large extent they are responsible for what has been happening. They gave the wrong advice so repeatedly and so often in the face of our appeals not to go on doing it, since the facts were so clear, that, with their special influence in the farming community, they have themselves invited what has happened.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he was vulnerable 18 months ago. That is a slight under-statement. He was vulnerable a good deal more recently than that. I have here Volume 490 of HANSARD, which covers the period 9th July to 20th July, 1951—a matter of about nine months ago. In other words, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he will forgive me saying so, was vulnerable right up to the time when he became Minister. That is the important point.
I think it will stand putting on record again what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said then to the community to whom he now has to say something quite different.
I believe that feedingstuffs could have been secured from dollar areas last autumn, and I refer, of course, particularly to Canada.… If we were to buy such wheat from Canada, and if, by so doing, we could build up in that country a source from which we could secure feedingstuffs, how much safer that would be than relying upon the sterling countries.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c. 1259–60.]
How much safer to rely upon Canada! He has now to confess, of course, that it cannot be done. It is not only not safe but we have not the dollars anyway. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) seems anxious to support his right hon. and gallant Friend, and well he might be because in the same debate he gave some advice and, as so often happens, a little less cautiously than his more canny Yorkshire companion. The hon. Member for Newbury said:
As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), reminded the Minister, there are supplies of feedingstuffs… which can be bought in Canada, and I hope the Minister will, if necessary, get tough with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that we are allowed to use some Canadian dollar; to buy low-grade wheat and coarse grains from Canada."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1951; Vol. 490, c 1345.]
The whole effect of that policy and those statements right up to the end—and I mark this—of the growing season last year was in fact to discourage those who were trying to persuade the farmers that it was useless to rely upon those sources. And for the drop in the acreage last year the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends must bear a great deal of responsibility.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman might draw the attention of the House to some very sound

advice I gave the House a few months ago. At that time we could have bought coarse grains, particularly low-grade wheat, most advantageously from Canada and we would not have put ourselves in the crazy position in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues left us of having more pigs and nothing upon which to feed them.

Mr. Brown: It is all very well to say now that we could have obtained them, by which I take it the hon. Member means that they were obtainable. But for all we know they may be there to be got this year or next. The point of the Minister's argument is that it does not matter if they are obtainable for we cannot afford to have them. My argument is that that was my point last year. Hon. Members opposite are entitled to salve their consciences as they like. I am only pointing out that when the Minister said the acreage fell last year he is bound to accept a very considerable amount of responsibility for that, since as recently as last year he was giving advice which must have been intended to discourage the sowing of those very crops.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: If the right hon. Gentleman had done some research a little further back he would have found that his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) made exactly the same statement. He said that scarce dollars would be used to buy these coarse grains.

Mr. Brown: And indeed they were; but the occupants of the present Government benches, who were then in Opposition, were so expansive on this business of buying overseas grain that they wanted still more. Now, of course, they find that they cannot buy them. A paragraph in the Conservative Party Agricultural Charter of June, 1948, deals with Conservative policy on feedingstuffs. The Conservative Party have been wrong on this point right the way through.
We have had some talk about broken pledges. The Lord President of the Council, we were told yesterday, supervises the Minister and the work of his Department. I hasten to say that I sympathise very much with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman both in the supervisor he has and in being supervised, which must make his job twice as hard as it should be. The Minister now may


very well be in trouble at the next annual meeting of the Conservative Party.
In 1948 in their Agricultural Charter the Conservative Party said:
We are determined that the first charge on foreign exchange for food purposes should be the procuring of animal feedingstuffs…
That is not in line with what the Minister said today. That statement goes on:
We also believe that larger quantities… must be grown and preserved at home.
But larger quantities of what? The only feedingstuffs mentioned which can be grown at home are dried grass, silage and kale. Any farmer reading that statement would be entitled to say "I am to grow my own grass and kale, but course grains will be a first charge on our foreign currency." That is why the Minister is in this difficulty.

Sir T. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman has had a very amusing time, to his own satisfaction, talking about feeding-stuffs, but I must interrupt to ask how we in Opposition in 1948 could know that the Socialist Government were going to make a complete mess of our financial position so that there was no money to buy the feedingstuffs from abroad?

Mr. Brown: That shows what supervising does. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now using the same language as his supervisor. That may make him more attractive to his overlord, but if he wants to be anything more than an underling he had better not do that. All I can say is that if the Conservative Party knew nothing about it they took a great number of pages to say so. The fact remains that the Conservative Party must accept that they have been doing their utmost to bring about just the situation that has come about.
We on this side of the House are quite free from any taint of that. Indeed, we did our very best to present the other side of the picture, and there is at least one hon. Member opposite who heard me once trying my poor best to do it. However, we welcome the conversion of the Conservative Party under the compulsion of realities, and we on our part will be as responsible as we were in Government. We hope that when the Party opposite are in Opposition they will be converted to that outlook.
Without doubt, the basic need is to get home to the industry a sense of the problem and a sense of its obligations. Farmers have considerable benefits under Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Part II is the corollary, and we must do all we can to get the farmers and landowners to accept the obligations under Part II as wholly, as vigorously and as wholeheartedly as they accept the benefits under Part I.
I believe, with such little experience as I have, that there is also a very urgent need for a considerable overhauling of the machinery of the Ministry of Agriculture itself for this purpose. There is a lot of talk these days about the need to amend the 1947 Act. It is obvious that one cannot have a major Act which does not contain some blemishes, but I believe that if we are to use the Act and the powers we now have vigorously and fearlessly we can do a lot more than we are doing without the bother of any amendment to the Act at all. I know the Minister has spoken on the subject and has made a very useful speech about "pepping-up" the Committees.
There are existing powers under Part II of the Act which I beg shall be used with all the vigour and fearlessness possible. There are also powers in the Agriculture (Special Direction) (Maximum Area of Pasture) Order. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends opposed it vigorously in Opposition and took over very happily and willingly when they became the Government. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us to what extent that Order has been used, up to as recent a date as possible.
After all, there is no point in paying £5 or £10 an acre if, in fact, one has got the power to get it without paying a special bribe—if I may use that rather unpleasant term for want of another one. I should like to know the extent to which we have tried to use that Order—the number of directions which have been issued under it, the extent to which there have been prosecutions, and so on—in fact, any figures which can be given, because I believe that Order could be used a good deal more than it is being used, and if we do not intend to use it any more we might as well get rid of it.
Recently I went to Leicestershire to have a look round to see what was hap-


pening there, as far as it is possible to see in an agricultural county as big as Leicestershire in one day. I had a walk round and was told on all hands—by the farmer with whom I was walking, by a neighbouring landlord and by people in the co-operative packing station there—that land is going down to grass in Leicestershire at a fantastically alarming rate.
When I got back I put a Question to the Minister about it, and I was told that landlords there are being very difficult about ploughing up. I asked him whether he thought that he was able to deal with that, and he assured me that he was. I had another word this day with my guide during my tour of Leicestershire, and I was assured that the process is still going on. Therefore, either the Committee is not being vigorous or we are restraining the Committee from using the power that it already has.
The other suggestion that I would make to the Ministry about its own machinery is that they should consider how far it is possible to re-create something of the sort of liaison arrangements which we had during the war. My right hon. Friend considered this again and again. He was always conscious of the need. The problem was that after the war one could not get men of the same calibre prepared to do the job as we found during the war. However, in view of the urgency and the pressure which exists, I suggest that it is worth looking at again to see whether some better liaison arrangements between the Ministry and the counties could be instituted.
But whatever one does about mechanics, in the end what is achieved really depends upon Government policy. Six or seven months, it could be argued, is not an over-long time for a Government to produce a major policy in every field. Nevertheless, I think there will be agreement in all parts of the House that it is getting well nigh high time when we heard from this Government just what its agricultural policy is. When the right hon. Gentleman made his first announcement on the subject of a ploughing-up scheme on 4th February he said:
This is a temporary short-term scheme with the sole purpose of securing more spring sown crops. It is without prejudice to more permanent plans which the Government will

formulate.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 6431.]
When we got the Price Review on 24th April—that is getting on for three months later—the right hon. Gentleman said:
… this price award is not, of itself, a comprehensive programme.… The Government are, therefore, pressing on urgently with discussions on these and other aspects of policy…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 741.]
In other words, the policy is still missing. We still do not know, neither does the industry, what the Government's agricultural policy is. I believe it is a fair point and a major criticism of this Bill that the Government are proceeding from one expedient to another, from one new temporary ad hoc subsidy or grant to another one, without any overall policy with which they can all be fitted into a general pattern. I believe it is time that the right hon. Gentleman told us what his production policy is.
In the Price Review there is a pious hope—and it is no more than a pious hope—that by 1956 production should be of the order of 60 per cent. above prewar. When my right hon. Friend was faced with a similar urgent situation in 1947 he did not do anything as weak as that. We agreed with the industry a real policy, the definitive terms of a real expansion programme, including crop targets, the order of priorities and the way in which the whole thing was to be split up over the whole field, and that was announced to the industry and the industry knew where it was. The industry must have something more than a pious hope of this kind if it is to feel the urgency of the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman's supervisor, speaking in another place, went even further. I am not quoting him; I am paraphrasing him, but I think I am being fair. He declared that this was certainly not a target. He took great pride in the fact that no crop targets were going to be issued. He said, "We are not farming from Whitehall." That is the sort of easy statement that one can make, but it is really quite irrelevant. If no crop targets are going to be given, if the final aim itself is to be no more than a pious hope, and there certainly is not to he a target, how can the farmers believe that there is great urgency about this?
Even if the figure of 60 per cent. were more than a pious hope, how much does it amount to? The supervising Minister said that by his calculations that represented a 12 per cent. increase between now and 1956. On a four-year programme that is 3 per cent. per year. The right hon. Baronet says that he does not know where he got it from, but the other person must be in touch; he cannot very well supervise without being in contact with the Department which he is supervising.
Since my right hon. Friend introduced his expansion programme in 1947, we averaged nearly 7 per cent. a year. So at a time of great urgency the industry is being invited to cut its annual increase of output by half. How can we convince the farmers that the situation is so urgent, and at the same time say that we can afford to do half as much as we have been doing?

Mr. Hurd: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what was the rate of increase in the last two years of his Government's office?

Mr. Brown: No; the hon. Gentleman can make whatever points he likes later. Our average over the whole period was 7 per cent. That figure is accurate. I am prepared to compare a four-year programme under this Government with a four-year programme under the late Government. One may say, "We have got to get into our stride again and the average will be 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. in the first year but the average over the whole period will be 7 per cent." But here the average requested is only half the average that we, in fact, achieved. That does not show any urgency. It shows lack of policy. It certainly shows lack of co-ordination between the Government spokesmen. The lack of priority in crop targets is a weak factor in the present position.
I recognise that pump-priming measures are very often essential in order to get a policy off to a good start, or to give it a particular switch, or to give an incentive to a particular slant of policy. I accept that, and we ourselves did it. On several occasions we introduced essential pump-priming measures. We had one like this; we had the calf subsidy, and we had various others. Sometimes we were heavily blasted by

hon. Members opposite for daring to do it, but nevertheless we did it. Any Government will have to do it, although it must be in addition to formulating a price policy. But these pump-priming measures are no substitute for policy, and they are meaningless without a policy within which to fit them. In any case, one of the dangers of these pump-priming measures is that they lead to difficulties of their own.
It is all very well paying an ad hoc subsidy as an incentive, but what happens when one wants to take it? Our experience in the past has been that the thing upon which one has been priming the pump does not go on under its own momentum. Once one has finished the pump-priming operation the momentum falls off even more sharply than it rose. We have found that with many things. I think that is the weakness of this particular kind of operation, and it is a weakness that must be borne in mind.
I do not wish to anticipate the general debate, but there is one general matter to which I must refer in order to set the subject in correct perspective. I feel there is a major change of policy on the question of how to implement the agricultural policy, assuming a policy is found. In the light of their recent pronouncements, the Government seem to feel that subsidies of one kind or another are a good feature of a long-term plan and are even preferable to a proper price structure.
I query very strongly whether the paying of 40 per cent. of the recent recoupment by way of subsidy is a good thing from the permanent, long-term point of view. I shall develop this theme more fully in the general debate. I feel that it must be brought out in order to see where we are getting. I urge the right hon. Baronet to think again, because it seems to me that our policy of a proper price schedule allied to a clearly-stated and well-understood production programme—with an occasional pump-priming operation—is much better than over-reliance upon so-called temporary subsidies of one kind or another.
With regard to this Bill, I would go further. I say that of all the pump-priming operations this particular one is probably open to more objections than most others. There are particular difficulties about it, of which I should like


to give one or two examples. It is very difficult to assess what one gets for one's money when one has paid it out. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we had 500,000 acres ploughed up of which, he thought, half was a net gain. I do not know how one assesses that, but assuming it is right—it cannot be more than a guess, and as he has very much more information he can make a better guess than I can—it means that we have paid not £5 but £10 an acre for the net gain.
We put this special scheme into operation so late in the year that we are bound to get a rather higher proportion of special ploughing up, but when we come to a long-term scheme, such as is provided for in this Bill, we are then going to get—because it goes on at the beginning of the year—a greater proportion of ordinary ploughing up than would arise in the ordinary way, so that instead of being half and half it is much more likely to be three-quarters ploughing up done in any case and only one-quarter special ploughing up.
That means that we shall pay not £10 an acre but something like £15 an acre for the net gain. I believe that this will mean that we shall be paying more and getting less for our money than the right hon. Baronet thinks—and it is going to be paid in East Anglia as well as in East Lancashire. It becomes very arguable whether one is really getting value for money.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how it is proposed to carry out the checks of which the Minister spoke today and in his previous announcement. As I understand it we have to check the age of the grass that has been ploughed up, the crop that is put in, the standard of cultivation after it is put in, and the yield to be got from it. Either there will be an enormous increase of officials or a lot of the advisory service staff will be taken off advice work to do this. I do not say that this necessarily rules out a short term, special pump priming operation; but I think it is a major objection to carrying it on as a long-term policy. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the Government are going to do in that respect.
There are other criticisms which I shall leave to my hon. Friends to develop. It may be said that this will help to improve the position of the small man—that it will

help to get some money into his pockets, direct without inflating the big chap. I do not believe this is true in the case of a long-term policy, because the big fellow gets the ploughing-up grant, and so he will be inflated. I am not sure how far the small chap is concerned in special ploughing up for this purpose, but there are many areas where the problem is not ploughing up but harvesting afterwards. One does not make it any easier for a man to harvest by paying him £5.
For many people it will be as bad as far as the grassland is concerned. There will be a tendency to manipulate the life of the leys so as to get them ploughed up at the moment of getting the subsidy. One will find that grass is growing on longer than it should, or is ploughed up when it has still got heart in it and could feed stock anyway if it were properly managed. Above all, as I was told so many times when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture and went round the country, one of its objections is that it encourages acreage-mindedness as against tonnage, output or yield-mindedness. The emphasis is on putting something in rather than getting something out, and people will not be studying standards of cultivation or checking the yields; they will be studying acreage.
These are major disadvantages, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give attention to them between now and the Committee stage. They are not objections to temporary pump-priming operations, but I think they are very major objections to a long-term scheme.
I am not clear where the money is to come from. It is clear that in any previous continuing scheme the money was part of the Price Review and came out of the global income allocated to the industry for that year; but I am not clear about this first special scheme. It was not taken account of in the February Price Review of last year or in any subsequent Price Review. Is one right in thinking that £21 million is any part of last year's income? It was not allowed for in any figure on which the last Price Review was negotiated. I am sure there is an easy answer, but the position is not clear and I should be glad to have it cleared up.
I warn the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that before he puts forward


a long-term scheme there are some things which we want to know. We want to know what are the production programme and the aims of the Government. I venture to think that it is not only the Opposition in this House but his own hon. and right hon. Friends who will want to know about that, and I am sure the industry does. We really must have it confirmed. We do not want the sort of statement which was made by the supervising Lord President, but a firm statement of the production programme and the policy aims. We must have some further information about the Government's action with regard to making the fullest use of its existing powers and machinery, so that we can judge how far we need things of this kind, or how far we can go under present arrangements.
We require a little more exact information as to the real cost of any extra acres paid for in this way, especially allowing for the fact that in a major long-term scheme we are paying more for ploughing up than we would under this special scheme. We should like to know what are the intentions of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to the resources of the industry. I think it is the utmost folly to be paying a ploughing-up grant to bring more acres into production at the very same moment that we are cutting down on drainage resources, limiting drainage to 15 per cent.
Surely there can be nothing as important, in breaking new grass into cultivation for arable crops, than proper and effective drainage. If we had a policy, the two things would march together. In fact, we have two things which are contradictory going together, and by the time we get a long-term programme I hope the Minister will be able to reverse his policy in that aspect and persuade his right hon. Friends that he ought to give us more information about these matters, and certainly give the industry an allocation of resources which the urgency of the problem merits.
I have many criticisms against the use of subsidies instead of a proper price schedule. I have even more objections, personally, to the use of this kind of ad hoc subsidy as against many others. But I accept that it is the Government's duty to decide whether, in the nature of things as they found them, they needed

a special pump-priming operation of this kind. We know that, having entered into a bargain, it must be honoured, and we shall put nothing in the way. The Government must decide the policy, which they themselves must stand by, but I hope the House will look carefully at the provisions of the Bill when it comes to embarking upon this questionable form of a long-term basis.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I should like to lend my support to the Bill. First of all, I was pleased to hear my right hon. and gallant Friend say that he had such an excellent response to the call which he made to the agricultural industry last February asking for these new acres.
If I may use the words of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), there is nothing new in this pump-priming operation, because in 1939 we had a subsidy to encourage the breaking up of grassland at the rate of £2 an acre. in 1947, that was increased to £4 an acre, and today's figure of £5 an acre probably amounts to about the same and, indeed, it may not even be as much as the original £2 paid in 1939.
The right hon. Member for Belper laid great emphasis on the increase in production which has taken place since 1947. I cannot get that to balance with the statement of my right hon. and gallant Friend that there has been a fall in the arable acreage during the last few years and that in the last 12 months there has been a fall in the number of livestock, such as cattle and sheep. Had there been such continuous expansion as the right hon. Member for Belper sought to suggest since 1947, we should not be faced with the fact that in the last 18 months there has been a decline both in acreages of arable land and in the number of cattle and sheep.

Mr. G. Brown: I am sorry to interrupt, after having spoken for so long, but the hon. Gentleman will find the answer if he looks, first, at a document issued by the N.F.U. called "Information Service." From it he will see the extent of the expansion in livestock—all except dairy cattle, and even though there was a reduction in the number of dairy cattle, we maintained the milk output so that


we increased the yield. Secondly, he will find the answer in the figure used by the Lord President of the Council in another place in which he referred to the output for last year as being 144 per cent. of pre-war—that is, 44 per cent. over prewar. When the expansion programme began, it was 117 and the hon. Gentleman can himself subtract one figure from the other, divide by four and he will get the same answer as that which I gave. If my figure is wrong, then he must blame the Lord President of the Council, on whose authority I was relying.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not obtain my figures from the Lord President of the Council: I obtained them in the Library of the House. I do not think for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that the Ministry of Agriculture supply the Library with figures which are incorrect.
In my opinion, we must turn our eyes more to our upper, dry chalk lands than we have in the past. In going round the country it has seemed to me that it is on the chalk lands, particularly in the South of England, that we have seen the greatest increase in the amount of crops grown through breaking up what was termed old pasture. We see, too, on those lands the greatest increase in the number of our livestock. In carrying out the policy which will be implemented by an Order under the Bill, I hope there will be no attempt to persuade the farmers in the low and wet heavy land, particularly in the West Country, to increase their arable acreage beyond an amount which they feel they can manage and which will grow proper and decent crops.
I am concerned about the increase in rough grazing which has taken place over several years. There must be a great deal of that land which can, and must, be drawn upon if we are to increase production to the extent which my right hon. and gallant Friend wishes. Quoting from the same source, that is, the Ministry of Agriculture, we find that whereas in 1938 we had, in round figures, some 16,500,000 acres of rough grazing, today that amount has increased to 17 million acres. That is a disturbing increase—some 500,000 acres between 1948 and 1951. I know that a great deal of that land could usefully be brought into culti-

vation with the modern methods which farmers generally adopt today.
In conclusion, I hope that, as a result of the policy which my right hon. and gallant Friend has now begun for the industry, we shall have very much greater stability than we have had in the last few years. I hope that we shall pursue a policy through which each and every product will get a price which will cover the cost of production. I do not want to see emphasis laid on one crop or one form of livestock and then, a year later, the policy put into reverse.
Dealing with the use of figures, and whether we are producing £x more of our produce this year than last year, I suggest that it would be very much wiser—indeed, I believe this is the soundest way of measuring agricultural production—to see the number of livestock which we have on our farms increased. As the years go by, I hope we shall see an increase in all forms of livestock. We want to see more pigs, and more sheep and more cattle. By the time we have another General Election, I hope that the numbers of our livestock will be very much greater than they are at present.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), say that he hoped the Government had a policy. True, he went on a moment or two later to explain what particular kind of policy he hoped they would have. It seemed to me that neither the speech of the hon. Gentleman nor that of the Minister gave any indication that this Bill dovetails in any way into a well-thought-out policy for the whole of agriculture. I think that is a very great disadvantage of it. It is just an ad hoc affair. But let me say at once that I think that, with certain limitations, it is a very good ad hoc affair.
We all agree that there must be a very considerable increase in the home production of food, and of the various ways in which to bring this about there are two rather more obvious than the others. They are to have either such a level of the end-product of the farmer that every farmer will be induced to produce to the maximum of his capacity, or to do what is done in this Bill and to give to the beginning end of the production line, so to speak, and to encourage by subsidy


that which it is confidently believed will lead to increased production.
I know the criticism of the first way, which in the main was adopted by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture, that this is giving a present to those farmers who are best off and who can afford to do without it. I agree that that might happen, but nevertheless, why not? The present level of taxation certainly does not leave an undue proportion of a farmer's or, indeed, anybody else's gains in the pockets of those who make them. This sort of criticism must come from a diseased town mentality which cannot bear the thought of a farmer's wife in a fur coat or a farmer in a motor car. I strongly deprecate that point of view.
Because this Bill proposes to introduce still further ploughing-up grants—some have already been promised—it will go right to the beginning end of the production line. That being so, I think the right hon. and gallant Baronet is quite justified in saying that he hopes the improvement already shown will be maintained. It is undoubtedly true that some farmers will be induced by this grant to plough up grass, and for that reason I think we are quite entitled at the present time to support it to the full.
If I may be personal for a moment—I have always liked to regard myself as a reasonable chap and as a person not unduly tinged with partisanship—I must say that I am one of those who do not think that the advent of Tory rule is an unmitigated loss. My reasons for thinking that are twofold. First of ail, we shall not have people who ought to know better going round countries abroad running down their own country, and secondly, we have already had a subsidence of those wailing cries which we used to hear from hon. Members opposite when they were in opposition for the importation of more foreign feedingstuffs.
I hope I am the first to acknowledge the spirit in which the right hon. and gallant Baronet came to the House this afternoon and referred to that topic. I use neutral language and need not refer to anything like a white sheet. I am sure we always appreciate any hon. Member coming to the House in that sort of spirit humbly admitting errors. But I think we are entitled to ask the followers of

the right hon. and gallant Baronet who sit behind him to attempt to remedy some of the evils they perpetrated in the last few years when they went round the countryside using up their energies and some of Lord Woolton's millions in propagating the erroneous idea that there were great quantities of feedingstuffs available which could be had for the asking.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) is not in his place at the moment. He is supposed to be, and I believe is, an expert in many aspects of agriculture, yet he lent his authority to that sort of propaganda which I think should most definitely be retracted before any Members on this side of the House are expected to lend their support to the sort of plea put out, I thought rather wretchedly, by the Prime Minister in his broadcast last week when he said in effect, "Now that we are in office we expect an end to partisanship."
If it is true that hon. and right hon. Members opposite think that, let them be as frank as the Minister of Agriculture has been and let them tell the truth. After all, they still represent some agricultural constituencies. It is true these are dwindling and will dwindle even more, but they still exercise some influence in the agricultural areas and they should tell the truth to their supporters on this feedingstuffs question. They would then have the right to expect us, if not to say that we want to keep them in power for ever, at least to give that full measure of fairness which hon. Members on this side always desire to give to a Government in power.
There is no doubt that, among the articles of food in this country the production of which should be increased, is meat. In the past we have too often had our eyes fixed upon distant lands in this respect to the neglect of pastures near at home. I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the right hon. and gallant Baronet to a most significant development taking place at the present time just across the Irish Sea, where the traditional exchange of coal from this country for cattle from Ireland is in some danger of being upset. Large capital—I believe American to a great extent—has been put into refrigerating plant in Dublin with a view to diverting the meat which would normally come to


this country, to America and elsewhere. This is a very significant development indeed.

Mr. Crouch: Would it not be fair to say that this development began two years ago when the then Minister of Food was not agreeable to paying the price for the Irish beef which the Irishmen wanted?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is a question which can be asked when we have the general debate on agriculture which we are hoping to have shortly. I am not going to deny it or admit it at the present moment. There are two sides to that question, as to most other questions. I am not saying this as a criticism of the Government, but merely stating that it has happened. Personally, I would not care a fig if we did not see another ounce of meat in this country for all time, because I hate the stuff. But, at the same time, that is not the view of most of my fellow countrymen, and until tastes change, if they do change, it is the obvious duty of every Government to try to produce as much meat as possible.
One result of this significant development in Ireland is not only that we may run a grave risk of not being able to import as much meat from Ireland as we might otherwise have done, but that we shall also receive fewer store cattle from Ireland. If store cattle can be produced among the boulders and the bogs and the mountains of Connemara and County Wicklow, why cannot they be produced in some of the backward areas, to use an expression commonly used in foreign affairs debates, of this country?

Mr. Crouch: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us where the backward areas are?

Mr. Mallalieu: It seems that some strange hats are worn by some hon. Members in this House. I hope they fit. I think that some of the parts of our country which have been neglected could very well be made to produce store cattle. This Bill is something which might tend in that direction. It would also tend, not immediately but in due course, to an increase in better quality grass; because ultimately the land ploughed up under these grants will have to be laid down to grass again and we shall have better quality grass, all being well.
I am not suggesting that the farmers in the most difficult areas—if I may use that expression with less offence to certain hon. Members opposite—are likely to be tempted to any great extent to plough up their land under this small subsidy. It is a very small subsidy for them when one considers the difficulties with which they would be faced after the ploughing up. There will, nevertheless, be farmers in some parts who had come to the conclusion that it would not pay them to plough up old grass who will now be persuaded to do so.
It is because I believe that this subsidy will probably lead to an increase, immediately, in the production of feeding-stuffs and ultimately, perhaps, to a better quality of grass that I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister who replies will give me some answer to this question: Do the Government regard this particular grant as a temporary affair? I hope so. For reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and by many others, there will surely come a time when there should be no grass to be ploughed up under such a grant as this, except perhaps the grass which is too good to be ploughed up anyway, because it is permanent pasture that cannot be improved upon by reseeding—there is still some in this country —or else it will be the grass too bad to grow crops on except grass, and to which this Bill does not apply in any case.
I hope that the Minister will say that he regards this particular grant as a temporary affair and not as part of a longterm policy. In those circumstances, because I think that it will increase immediately the amount of feedingstuffs available, I support this Bill.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I do not share the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) that the measures proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister should be only of a temporary character. On the contrary, I hope that they prove the precursor to other Measures of this character, all of which, I believe, will be infinitely valuable in extending the supplies of feeding-stuffs, and the supplies of those valuable foodstuffs which we expect to derive from a greater acreage devoted to feedingstuffs.
With that opening remark, which is intended to follow the general tenor of the speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I pass to congratulating my right hon. Friend on his sagacity in introducing this Measure at such an early date in the affairs of the present Government.
I think it fair to say that of the 500,000 acres which he anticipates will be ploughed up in the period between the date when the scheme was announced in this House, on 4th February, 1952, and next autumn, we have already seen the ploughing up of a very generous part of that estimated figure. I know that from my own experience. Within a few days of the announcement being made in this House, I had occasion, one Saturday afternoon, to visit that part of my constituency—a very rich agricultural area—which lies immediately to the west of the River Severn in Worcestershire, and I found salutary results had taken place since I visited that area earlier, and, in many places, there were signs of farmers taking advantage of the incentive that was offered in the shape of this ploughing-up grant.
Therefore, I do not share the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who although he said that he did not like using the expression "bribe," nevertheless did so. I do not regard this Measure in any way as a bribe. I consider it a legitimate incentive measure in the present state of our economic affairs and of the deplorable deficit in our balance of overseas payments. It is upon this broad economic appreciation of the present situation that I wish to dwell for a few minutes.
I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House should not lose sight of the fact that we have emerged from a year in which the adverse balance of payments on visible account was no less than £1,200,000,000, or at the rate of £100 million a month. I was particularly pleased to hear yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) say that, in spite of the fact that hon. Members in all parts of the House had advanced the view that taxation should not be increased on entertainments, the fact remains that every taxation measure, every demand on public funds, and every subsidy ought to be

viewed in its proper relation and contribution towards restoring national solvency, and a proper balance of our overseas payments.
The import of this Bill—a small but delectable Bill—is to deal particularly with that major issue. If my right hon. and gallant Friend is correct in saying that 500,000 acres of old grassland will be ploughed up by the autumn, and assuming that it is not over-generous to suggest that the yield yer acre will be approximately one ton of feedingstuffs as a general average for the country as a whole, then we deduce that 500,000 tons of feedingstuffs additional to our present supplies will be obtained by the autumn. The price of imported feedingstuffs, which varies, of course, according to quality and type, may on a general average be taken at £40 per ton. I am aware that barley is possibly £45 a ton and that other grains may be less, but on an average the figure is about £40 a ton.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to food barley or barley for distilling and brewing?

Mr. Nabarro: I was referring to imported grains for the purpose of feedingstuffs, and I think that an average of £40 per ton is not inaccurate. If the right hon. Gentleman catches Mr. Speaker's eye later, perhaps he will quote the precise figures for every class of feedingstuff that we import. I am making the point that 500,000 tons of feedingstuff may be derived as a result of this Measure by the autumn, at a price of £40 a ton, which will result in a saving in foreign exchange amounting to £20 million. Against that £20 million has to be put, of course, the cost of operating this subsidy scheme which, according to the Bill, will amount of £2½ million.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The hon. Gentleman seems not to be taking into account that the grass itself would have some value, and he seems not to have listened to the Minister when he said that he expected that 500,000 acres would qualify for this grant but he would say to the House that it was reasonable to assume that less than half that acreage would have been ploughed up in any case, so the additional acreage was 250,000 and not 500,000—

Mr. Nabarro: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Fraser: That is the Minister's opinion.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that I am talking about the saving in foreign exchange. I am perfectly prepared to admit that the acreage which may have been ploughed up had this subsidy not been introduced would have yielded something, but it would not have made any great contribution to saving in foreign exchange, which is what I am discussing at the moment. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) wishes to discuss this matter, a Scottish opportunity is to follow and he will no doubt catch Mr. Speaker's eye in due course.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps observe that this is a United Kingdom Measure. It is equally applicable to England and to Scotland.

Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advance the Scottish point of view later.
I now pass to the subject of pigs. The increase in our pig population during the last two years has been extremely gratifying and will surely be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The precise figures are illuminating; they show that in December, 1950, the United Kingdom pig population was 2,715,000; by December, 1951, it had grown to 3,906,000; and the latest estimate is that it is approaching 4,250,000. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) dissent again?

Mr. T. Williams: I said that it has broken all records.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman may claim a certain measure of credit for the policy which has brought about the increase in the population of these noble and prolific beasts. In view of the great difficulties in securing supplies of meat from abroad, whether it is red meat or white meat, this is a matter of importance, and we should congratulate those responsible for bringing about the increase in the pig population.
The position is that approximately seven-eighths of the pigs are reared by

farmers and smallholders and about one-eighth are what are commonly referred to as "back-yard" pigs. I have very often advanced the view in this House that one of the greatest single contributions that can be made to a further increase in our pig population is the removal of many of the restrictions and controls which are still maintained upon the rearing and slaughtering of backyard pigs and the inconveniences that an urban dweller has to suffer if he is to rear and slaughter one or two pigs each year. I particularly dislike the restriction upon the number of pigs that he is allowed to rear.
I am told, and I accept it as a reasonable point of view, that the principal reason all these restrictions and controls upon the rearing of backyard pigs cannot immediately be removed is the shortage of feedingstuffs and the danger that, if controls were prematurely removed, a black market in pig meat would very quickly be created.
I am not sure that is a valid excuse, but if 500,000 tons of extra feedingstuffs result from this subsidy, it might be possible for my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Minister of Food, by the time the autumn arrives, to remove feedingstuffs from rationing altogether. I should be grateful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could give the House some indication of the overall shortage on the amount of feedingstuffs required to maintain the existing population of pigs and cattle, and whether, if the extra 500,000 tons materialises by the autumn, it would be possible to remove feedingstuffs from rationing and, as a concomitant measure, to remove the restrictions and controls upon the rearing of backyard pigs.
It has been said that this Bill represents only rough justice, and that it favours the farmer who has been inefficient in the past and penalises the farmer who has been efficient, because it gives the farmer who has neglected to plough up grassland an opportunity to have a State subsidy for ploughing it up at this very late date, whereas the man who was enterprising and took some action before the subsidy was announced will have no such benefit.
Undoubtedly anomalies of that sort must always exist with a State sponsored scheme of this sort inaugurated on a specific date. It cannot be helped. I do not think that the anomaly and perhaps


the sense of grievance that may exist in some counties should be allowed to vitiate or negative the broad general goodness of the Bill's proposals.
We are faced, possibly for several years, with a continuing shortage of meat. The shortage need not be so great and, particularly, bacon rationing need not continue for too long a period if only we can, after the 500,000 acres are ploughed for feedingstuffs, imbue the farming community with a sufficient sense of urgency with Government incentive and support, to press forward from the initial 500,000 acres to a further one million acres, making a total of 1,500,000 acres of old grassland which the Scientific and Research Department of the Ministry of Agriculture estimate are available for ploughing up.
I wish this small but generous and valuable Measure a speedy and successful passage through this House and another place, and I hope that it will yield the full benefits that my right hon. and gallant Friend suggested.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am not sure that I can entirely agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in his hope that this type of assistance will become permanent. Nor am I very sure that I understand his arguments. He advanced the quite correct view that the country was in great difficulties with foreign exchange and that it was more than ever necessary to grow more feedingstuffs at home. But may we not hope—surely it is the intention of the Government—that our foreign exchange difficulties will be ameliorated and that in due course we shall return to a situation in which we can import more freely?
The hon. Member said—and I agree—that the way to get more production from the farmers is to offer them incentives. But I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) when he said that he thought that, on the whole, the best incentive one could offer a farmer was a good price for his product, and that, while subsidies like this one are from time to time necessary they should be regarded with caution, and that, all things being equal, a good price was the better incentive.
In connection with this sort of subsidy we sometimes get requests—we have had them tonight—for some form of compulsion on farmers to treat their land in a certain way and for inspectors to find out whether the land is ploughed and that the correct crop is sown. While such things may be necessary, I view them with reluctance.
I do not deny that the county agricultural executive committees have done a very good job, but I believe that when they are given the task of enforcing measures on their neighbours they are very often put in a very difficult position. They are asked to be quasi-judicial, quasi-executive bodies, and, certainly in small counties this leads to very difficult political, judicial and personal problems. I would much rather rely on incentives and, on the whole, on the very good sense of farmers to respond to the need of the nation and to earn a little more money, even though they do not necessarily get enough to buy fur coats for their wives, as one hon. Member suggested earlier.
This Measure may certainly be necessary as an emergency, but, as is well known, it has led to considerable anomalies as between farmer and farmer. This year, at any rate, the fixing of a date, 5th February, has meant that some farmers, possibly the more efficient, have been cut out of the subsidy and others, who have no more right to it, will be able to draw it. That may be inevitable, but we ought to try and insure that in future Measures such an anomaly between farmer and farmer does not arise.
I also feel that in certain parts of the country, and certainly in Scotland, the time is coming when we must pay more attention than at present to the improvement of grass. In the north of Scotland we have in the middle of summer a flush of very good grass, but at this time of the year and again in the autumn we find ourselves in a position of difficulty in getting the sheep or cattle in anything like decent condition. If we could extend the period of growing grass for even a short time, it would mean a considerable saving in feedingstuffs.
While this Bill does not deal with grass, it is, I think, a valid point to make on it—this need for grass for feeding and silage. The necessity in Scotland to improve the grassland is perhaps even


greater than the need for more tillage, and it will lead to a great increase in food for the people and in agricultural production generally. I hope that when the Government spokesman winds up this debate, he will be able to give some indication that this is appreciated by the Government and that when the broad policy of the Government is known, it will be attended to.
I should like to finish by saying something about the need for imported feeding grains. We must look to the time when imports can be increased. I would appeal to the right hon. and gallant—. I had almost said wicked Baronet—when he is atoning for his murky past, not to go too far. Let him retain a spark of wickedness and press the need for imported grains as hard as he can. There seems to me to be a certain danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water, of overlooking the fact that a great deal of the prosperity of the agriculture of this country is dependent on importing feedingstuffs.
I should think that in the long run we are bound to import more again. Farmers may aim to increase our home production, plough, improve grass and so on, but ultimately if we are to support 50 million people in this country we have got to get back to the state when we can spare a very much greater amount of foreign exchange for the particular purpose of buying foreign feedingstuffs to feed the beasts that we are rearing.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. George Lambert: I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who is such a distinguished member of the other Liberal Party, did not say that, as well as the fanner requiring a remunerative price, he was discouraged if he had his money taken away by high taxation. My particular branch of the Liberal Party pays very great attention to Mr. Gladstone's dictum that low taxation is the secret of good government.

Mr. Grimond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will impress that on his own Chancellor.

Mr. Lambert: I hope my remarks will be drawn to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the success which his proposals are having. I cannot help feeling that the results would have been very much better had he announced this policy a little sooner. Not only have the farmers who have got ahead with their work been penalised, but the lazy farmers have been able to reap a reward due to their not getting on with the work.
I feel that one of the reasons the proposals were not announced earlier was due to the statistical branch of the Ministry of Agriculture. I have an idea that that branch is so cluttered up with information and statistics that it was not realised that the production of food over the last two years was falling. Another regret I have is that these proposals will involve the farmer filling in yet another form. After a hard day's work, the farmer does not like to sit down at night to fill in forms for his feeding-stuffs, cattle subsidies and so on, and I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to pay particular attention to this matter and to see whether the number of forms can be reduced.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is it the suggestion of the hon. Member that it would be easier for the farmers to achieve the ends we all have in view without forms?

Mr. Lambert: I feel there should be some way of reducing the number of forms and so enabling the farmer to devote all his energies to cultivating the land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done a very good thing in reducing the amount of time and energy a farmer will have to spend in filling in P.A.Y.E. forms, and I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will look at his statistical branch and see whether he cannot reduce the amount of information for which that branch asks.
The farmer is always a little bit sceptical of statistics. My father served on the Royal Commission on Agriculture 60 years ago, and he asked an expert for some figures. The expert said, "Mr. Lambert, what do you want to prove? If you will tell me, I will produce the figures, for I can produce figures to prove anything." I believe the reason my right hon. and gallant Friend did not announce his proposals earlier was


that his statistical department was completely immersed in their various returns. Before the war we used to get one form a year to fill in, the yearly return. It used to be called for in June and there were 118 questions. Now we get no fewer than four different returns to fill in each year, and there are 330 questions. One wonders who is allowed to put down all these extra questions on the forms.
Again, as well as reducing the number of forms, the number of questions might be reduced and the returns simplified. I am quite convinced that the farmer would then take more trouble in filling in the forms and there would be greater accuracy of information received by the Department. If my right hon. and gallant Friend could do that, it would be a tremendous help to the production of food in this country. He would make the farmers realise that the emphasis must be on production, and not upon his Ministry trying to farm from Whitehall.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: The question with which we are dealing this afternoon arises from a reversion by the nation to the peace-time recession in agriculture. Over the last two years we have seen a gradual fall in agricultural production and in the number of agricultural workers. This fall was taking place all over the world in pre-war years, when people were returning from the land to the towns. In Australia, for example, something like 85 per cent. of the population lived within 100 miles of the coastline.
Once again the reaction has set in after war, and people all over the world in every free country are moving away from the land to the towns and cities. This is one of the great difficulties that every nation has to face. It is occurring here, and until there is a new view by the urban population of the necessity for agriculture, no amount of pump-priming will bring people back to the land. We need a completely different view of the place which agriculture takes in the life of our nation if we are to bring back prosperity on the land.
This is the first opportunity I have had to speak from these benches, and although I have changed over from that side of the House to this side, my views

on the question of subsidies are just the same. I opposed them when I was on that side and I am against them today. We must get to something far deeper than this pump-priming by subsidy if we are to put life back into agriculture.
The subsidy that we are discussing today is one of the most effective. I disagree on that point with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). If we can persuade a farmer to turn his land over, he must do something with it. He has to put a crop into it. It is no use otherwise. In persuading him to turn his land over, we shall ultimately get greater production. The plan has its bad points. The Minister has told us that, while he hopes to have 500,000 acres turned over, the net result will only be about 250,000.
I hope that in any future scheme that he makes, he will put in conditions. Under the present scheme, it is possible for a farmer to plough up land that has been down to grass for four years and then to lay out to grass the land that has been arable, and so balance himself out. He will be able to put down the same amount to grass as he ploughs up of arable land, and so there will be no net gain to the country in tillage acreage. I hope that when any new scheme is brought forward, a condition will be placed in it that will debar a farmer from receiving any subsidy if, at the same time as he ploughs up old grassland for the subsidy he lays down arable land to grass. That is one of the reasons the net result all over the country may not be as high as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has put it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has left the House, because he told us that in his constituency, on some of the richest land in the country, farmers were taking advantage of this subsidy of £5 per acre. I say frankly that if farmers on the richest land in the country need £5 per acre to persuade them to plough up, there is something absolutely wrong with their farming. The richest land in the country ought to be under the plough. It should not require an incentive of £5 an acre to make the farmers plough it up.
I come from one of the most difficult parts of the country to farm, and it has always puzzled me where the incentive lay in this £5, or £4—or £2 as it used to be—subsidy. If we plough up land, pro-


vided it is well drained to start with, it costs us £20 to £25 an acre for cultivation, manuring and seeding before we draw anything back. Farmers all over the country are in very similar conditions where the land is not exceptionally good. For the life of me I cannot see why £5 is an incentive to farmers to grow on land like that.
When we examine this matter, we find that it is really a question of the farmer himself. It boils down to the point that a good farmer will plough land when he feels he can get something out of it and he is adding to the cultivation of his land and to good farming, entirely irrespective of the £5 an acre. The hon. Member for Kidderminster said that the farmers in this country would draw £20 million, on an average figure, on these 500,000 acres, and that that should be an incentive. They are going to draw £20 million because the Government are giving them £2½ million. The argument simply does not make sense. If the farmers are going to draw £20 million from this ploughed-up land, they could do it without the £2½ million subsidy. So I do not believe that this subsidy is the incentive we are led to believe.
Much as I dislike it, we must have a subsidy because the only alternative is a free market for the produce of the farmers. With a free market we should get the real value of that produce, but as long as it is controlled and as long as the price is fixed, there must be some artificial method of production, and this is it. Because we hold the farmer in this way, such a method is necessary; but I do not like it.
The Minister timed this subsidy very well for 4th February. He waited until the good farmers had their land ploughed and would not get the £5 subsidy. It came just at a moment when the farmers who were in the balance looked over their grassland and decided that they would plough it up because the Minister was giving them something. The Minister saved a fair amount of money and I congratulate him. However, I can see his point in getting the land ploughed before 31st May. The Minister is looking to the autumn of this year and the spring of next year, and he will have a greater tillage acreage for grain crops than will be ready for the autumn sowing. It is a good piece of work on which we must congratulate the Minister.
We must get it over to the farmers that for the security of agriculture we have to return to the peak figure of the tillage acreage. It is impossible to look forward to any greater importation of feedingstuffs for many years to come. The countries where feedingstuffs are grown are beginning to use more themselves. America is even considering the importation of meat in a few years' time. We shall be thrown more and more upon our own resources.
While this subsidy will have some effect, it is not the incentive that it is made out to be. The recession in agriculture is far deeper than can be dealt with by these artificial means. We shall have to get to grips with a long-term programme. I am hoping to see one within a short time so that we can examine the manner in which the Government intend to deal with this problem inside these islands. / hope that it will go right to the root of the difficulties, which lie far deeper than any artificial subsidy like this can ever go.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I hope the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) will forgive me if I comment on what he said at the end of my remarks instead of at the beginning. I had not intended to intervene in this debate until I was incited to do so by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), perhaps not for the first time.
I welcome this Bill to meet an emergency situation. The right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say about what was said on the subject of dollars by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and it was against that background that he made his comments. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that one of the things that made the introduction of this Bill necessary was the catastrophic drain on dollars and gold last year. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we were wrong in saying that any dollars were available, but one has only to look at the figures in the "Economic Survey." In 1950 the surplus was 93 million dollars, but in the first half of 1951 there was a deficit of 270 million dollars. In the second half of 1951 the deficit was 1,196 million dollars, and the provisional figure of deficit for the year was 1,466 million dollars. As for saying there were no dollars, I will show in one minute where the dollars went.
It is great fun to be amusing about party statements. At one time or another I have done the same, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the statement from which he quoted was made before the war in Korea started, and before the previous Government embarked on the defence programme, and that the picture changed completely.
Now I come to the question of whether the dollars were there or not. In 1949 the Socialist Government allocated just over £1 million of dollars for the purchase of apples. In 1950 it allocated £2,824,000 of dollars for the same purpose. In 1951, when we had the greatest apple crop ever known in this country, it allocated £5,869,000 of dollars. Let us think what would have happened if those dollars had been allocated to the purchase of feeding-stuffs. According to a calculation I have made from the Trade and Navigation Returns, they would have bought 166,000 tons of feedingstuffs.
I am not so optimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), but I should like to try to settle the dispute which took place between himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The price of imported feedingstuffs last year averaged £35 a ton and has gone up since. My calculation is that this Bill will probably get us 200,000 tons extra feedingstuffs. In other words, the Bill will do what the previous Government 'could have done if it had spent those dollars on buying feedingstuffs instead of on unwanted apples.
The right hon. Member for Belper asked for the long term plan of the Government. I am looking forward to that too. A change has taken place in the last six months. Six months ago, when one talked to farmers, one found that there was doubt, that there was uncertainty—in some quarters even defeatism —because they did not know what was going to happen. That has been banished. There is no doubt or uncertainty now. They can see the way ahead, and that change has taken place. I do ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that this Bill is introduced to meet an emergency situation, which was a situation of their making.
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley that I think he

should look at agriculture in this way. People say that agriculture is the fourth line of defence. It is one of those nice easy phrases that slip out easily and well at public meetings. But is it a catch phrase or is it a reality? We have got to make up our minds in this House whether we are going to treat agriculture as the fourth line of defence or not. The public must make up their minds about it, too. I believe that it is a defence industry, and that it must accordingly be treated as other defence industries are—and that is why I welcome this Bill.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Richards: I warmly welcome the introduction of this Bill, despite some criticisms on this side of the House, because I think—I certainly hope—that it is the beginning of a very definite policy for dealing with agriculture. I think we have got to read it from one point of view. Looking abroad, it seems to me that our chances of getting much feedingstuffs or much food from the countries from which hitherto we have got them are very slight indeed. We do not realise to what extent the countries engaged primarily in agriculture have changed during the last quarter of a century or so. Instead of exporting food, all the great agricultural countries of the world, it seems to me, are going to consume all that they can produce themselves. When we look abroad critically, I think we are driven to the conclusion that the only way in which we can hope to increase the amount of food we are going to enjoy in this country is by growing it ourselves.
We are bound to do something about agriculture. Some attempts have been made. Some were made by the last Government, for example, to increase the productivity of certain parts of this country, especially the hill lands. I think they succeeded to a very considerable extent in re-establishing the position of many of the sheep farms in the poorer parts of the country. Still, much more may be done in that direction, and, fortunately, we are living in a period when science has come to the aid of the farmer to such an extent that we had some experiments during the war as the result of which we are now able to grow crops where we never imagined any crops could be grown at all before.
The future seems to me to lie with the Ministry to take their courage in their


hands to do their best to revive the fertility of some of those parts of the country that have been lying waste for a great many years. I do hope that, when the plan is introduced for agriculture in the near future—as, I hope, it will be—we shall find then that the Minister of Agriculture, who, I think, is very much alive to this question, will not only introduce subsidies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) so much objects, but will at the same time relate any scheme of assistance that he has to the latest scientific developments in the world of agriculture. Our hope just lies there.
We have some excellent land; we have a great deal of inferior land, too; and we have allowed that inferior land practically to go out of cultivation. Science, however, at the moment is in a position to assist us in that case. I have seen some remarkable results in various parts of North Wales, for example, in consequence of war-time efforts, and I trust, as I said, that the Minister will not hesitate to combine the latest scientific agricultural work with any help that he can give to agriculture. Our hope lies there. If we do not move in that direction, I see a very poor future for our agricultural people in this country.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I shall detain the House only a very little time to put two points that I should like to make in support of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) had quite a lot of fun earlier with the question of the import of feedingstuffs. I think that it is quite illogical for him or anybody on the benches opposite to charge us in the way he was charging us, because it is abundantly clear that the reason we are not able to import feedingstuffs is that his own party made it impossible for us to do so by their policies, which created a lack of dollars.
I think that that is fundamental to any appreciation of the situation. If we are able at the present time to import as much feedingstuffs as were being imported before, then I say that that is equivalent to a very substantial increase, bearing in mind the economic position of the country as a whole. It is important to realise that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, too, a drop in the tillage acreage during the last year or two, and he even seemed to imply that that was the fault of this party because we said we should have imported feedingstuffs. Clearly, however, we could not be held responsible for what happened during the period when the other party were in power, and certainly, though we may have said we should have imported feedingstuffs, we had no power to do so, and it is utter folly to say we were responsible for that decline—a decline which led to an increase of 500,000 acres of grassland in the last two years; a decline the damage caused by which we are seeking to repair. As I say, it was damage done by the Socialist Government.
The other point I particularly want to stress, and which, I think, has not been stressed in this debate, is the tie-up between the Bill we are discussing now and the labour problem. This Bill, after all, is only a stimulant. It is a stimulant to try to restore the position as it was—as I mentioned—two years ago. We are trying to do that, but we should realise that the underlying cause of our present difficulty—and I do not think it lies purely in the fact that subsidy has been taken off: it lies far deeper than that—and the reason land has gone back to grass to a considerable extent, is the shortage of labour, which is becoming an increasing difficulty in the countryside. I say it is no good at all to try to stimulate a larger tillage acreage unless we are prepared to provide extra labour to see that full use is made of it.
I think that that is a most important point, and I do say that we have got to be very careful to see that some action is taken to provide a very considerable increase in the labour force on the land, if we are to reap the proper benefits of the Bill. I think that that is probably the most important point that has to be tied up with this particular Bill, if we are to get results.
There are other things I should have liked to refer to, but I promised to speak for only a moment or two. I support the Bill wholeheartedly. I should like my right hon. and gallant Friend to try to take up the points I have mentioned, especially that about labour, because unless we are provided with extra labour we cannot get the land ploughed up.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Does the hon. Member think that the return of a large number of people to working on the land will be encouraged by the policy of the National Farmers' Union in opposing, on every occasion when they have the chance, a rise in the workers' wages?

Mr. Godber: The hon. and learned Member is trying to lead me into a very involved matter, which I should be happy to debate with him in full. I am not here as the spokesman of the National Farmers' Union. There are a number of Matters involved in the question and it is very difficulty to give an immediate answer which has the effect of being a full reply.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), although doubtless he is a great agricultural expert, does not seem to be very proficient in the art or practice of logic, nor does be seem to have paid much attention to what has been said by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture. To take the hon. Member's last point first, it is within my recol- lection that the Minister of Agriculture has said that there is no great shortage of labour. In fact, he is calling up agricultural workers for the Armed Forces. Therefore, whilst it may be a long stride from the Bill to that particular subject, the hon. Member seems not to have gone into the matter very carefully; but if he has, he has failed to draw the right conclusion.

Mr. Godber: Certainly I have given some study to the question. I remind the hon. Member that it was not the present Minister who introduced the call-up of agricultural workers. It was done when the party opposite were in power. My party have mitigated the position very considerably by reducing the numbers of those who are called up.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member bears out completely my charge of his lack of logic. I admit that my right hon. Friends called up agricultural workers for the Armed Forces, but the present Minister has continued the practice, and if the shortage to which the hon. Member has referred does not exist, or if it does exist and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has continued to allow agricultural workers to

be called up then, in accordance with the formula laid down yesterday by the Prime Minister, he ought to resign. The Prime Minister laid it down quite clearly that if a Minister does not accept the policy laid down by the Cabinet—in this case, the policy of the call-up—the Minister concerned—in this case the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and particularly as the growing of food is so important—should forthwith place his resignation in the hands, not, of course, of the Prime Minister, but of the supervisor, co-ordinator or overlord, or whatever is the title that is used.

Mr. Godber: This is very interesting, but surely the hon. Member agrees that the matter of agricultural labour must be considered in connection with the whole background of the country and its urgent need of food production.

Mr. Speaker: We are getting far away from the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I transgressed the rules of order but I was following the hon. Member, who now makes the position worse by saying that the Bill will create a shortage of labour on the land. That is very serious indeed. Again, I underline my invitation to the Minister to consider his position if that charge is true.

Mr. G. Brown: We do not want to lose the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He is better than the rest.

Mr. Wigg: In that case, I had better turn to the first of the points made by the hon. Member for Grantham. He seems to find it rather odd that my hon. and right hon. Friends were indignant with the action of the party opposite during the last five years. It is not so very odd that they should be indignant. Not only Members of the House, but members of the Conservative Party up and down the country, lacking a policy of their own, went round the countryside saying that there was no shortage of feedingstuffs. The question at issue is whether that statement was true.
The question of the responsibility for the importation of feedingstuffs rests, of course, with the Government, but the gravamen of the charge against the party opposite is that they disregarded the national interest in order to advance their


own political cause. They made statements which were untrue and which they knew to be untrue, and which, I suggest, the hon. Member knows were untrue. Therefore, it is brazen impudence on his part to come to the House this afternoon and charge my hon. and right hon. Friends because they have exposed the machinations of the party opposite.

Mr. Godber: I am enjoying this. The facts of what has been said on both sides are clearly on record. Surely, the hon. Member would agree that the position is entirely different today to what it was two or three years ago, when suddenly we had, if not enough dollars, at any rate far more to spend than we have at present. It is utterly irresponsible for the hon. Member to talk in that way.

Mr. Wigg: I have been a Member of the House only for seven years, although I am likely to be here for a good many more years, but I have been here long enough not to be led away by red herrings of that kind.
The real issue is whether or not it is true that there was a shortage of feeding-stuff during the past few years. It is a question not of argument, but of fact. The hon. Member said that if only the previous Government had had the will, they could have got all the feedingstuff they wanted. That statement was untrue, and if the hon. Member suggests otherwise he is guilty of impudence.
I turn now to the speeches of the hon. Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), who got into extraordinary difficulties. I tried to follow their mathematics. According to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, the Bill will produce 500,000 more acres. The hon. Member for Canterbury put the figure at 200,000. There seems to be some difference on this point in the party opposite, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will give the actual figure, otherwise I for one certainly would find difficulty in giving the Bill my support.
Next, according to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, the farmers are to get that 500,000 acres at a cost of £40 an acre, which represents £20 million. That is a lot of money. My constituency is next to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans).

Mr. G. Brown: Do not let that influence you.

Mr. Wigg: No, it does not, but the figures given by the hon. Member for Kidderminster do influence me. Talk about "feather-bedding"—they must now be taking the feathers out and putting £5 notes in. It is an extraordinary argument to say that the farmers will get £20 million out of this and that we are to give them another £2½ million to enable them to get that £20 million. If the figures of the hon. Member for Kidderminster are correct, it is nothing more nor less than legalised banditry and holding up the consumer to ransom.
I am horrified at the arguments I have heard this afternoon. Whilst I shall not disregard the advice of my right hon. Friends and vote against the Bill, I am horrified at the policy which is being pursued, and I want on behalf of the consumers, whose voice appears not to have been heard, to enter my protest against this policy which is going to pour out millions of pounds of public money for no other purpose than the hope that we might get a little more of the feeding-stuffs that we ought to get automatically if farmers and farmers' sons were to put their backs to the wheel and would work a little harder. It is no good going to the industrial worker or to areas where the export industries are sustained and to ask our people to work harder and to pay more for their food, if at the same time the Government pour out millions of pounds of public money and put it in the pockets of those who do not deserve it in the least.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), except to deal with the last point he made. He surely misrepresented the position when he said that a small payment in is going to put a vast sum of money into the pockets of farmers. The small payment in represented by this subsidy is a contribution to the very high costs of cultivating this land which at present we want to see cultivated.
I wish to return to what I believe should be the real argument of the debate. I think we all welcome the Bill and are very gratified to hear the Minister say that the response to the first


scheme under the Bill has been so good. The principle we should be discussing is whether this form of subsidy payment, continued over the years, is the way in which we want to see the farming community paid, or whether the right method is to put the money on to the final product. We all agree that the future of production in this country, especially in meat, depends on grassland, and that it lies in ploughing up and sowing down and that the aim is to assist and catalyse that process.
During and just after the war, we were able to plough up a great deal of grass- land and at the same time to increase our cattle population. Until last year the cattle population went on increasing, but at the same time we have been laying down to grass and losing land from our tillage area. The great problem is how we are to encourage the improvement of grass by ploughing it up and continually putting the land through a long rotation. I believe that is a policy farmers want to follow, but once they have laid the land to grass, the expenses are such that there is a strong inducement to keep it as grassland, whereas this subsidy is intended to encourage further ploughing.
This afternoon we have had reference made to pump-priming operations. I do not believe that is quite an accurate description of what the subsidies are in- tended to do. In my part of the country —in the Fen districts—we have to lift the drainage water to get it into the rivers and into the sea. Sometimes we lift it twice, first by a booster and then by a pump. I believe it is in the form of a booster that this subsidy operates and that we shall find it necessary, if we are to get a very high level and intensity of production, to invoke the system of a booster payment such as the Bill seeks to put into operation.
I should like to develop the theme much further, as it is one of the most important themes in connection with agriculture at present, but this debate has already gone on for a very long time and I will merely conclude by saying that I welcome the Bill.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. J. R. E. Harden: In rising, as one of a very small minority, to put the Northern Ireland point of view, I wish to say how glad I am that an hon.

Member opposite raised the question of the selling of carcase beef from Southern Ireland, a process which is just starting, and which will have a considerable effect on the supply of beef to this country from Southern Ireland. If it goes on in the way it is going, it will have a serious effect on the supply of meat from Northern Ireland, because it will be more profitable for the meat farmer in Northern Ireland to sell in Southern Ireland.
I rise to lend my support to the Bill, which I believe has the complete support of the whole farming community of Northern Ireland. I have good reason to believe that already its effect has been to produce a greatly increased tillage acreage in our small area of Northern Ireland. Over the last 12 months there has been a reduction of 30,000 acres under oats and 35,000 acres under potatoes. While I believe the oats acreage will increase considerably, I cannot say that I believe that the potato acreage will increase at all.
I say that because this year there was an abundant crop, and I believe that the Ministry of Food were not accurately informed and a real muddle was made of the marketing of Northern Ireland potatoes, many of which still remain in the fields in the pits and have not yet been shifted. The farming community, who still have those potatoes on their hands, have no great confidence in the moving of their potato crop should they increase their acreage next year.
What I think important is that my right hon. and gallant Friend should try to pay this money to the small farmers as soon as possible. Many small farmers in my district are being pushed by the banks and cannot get the money. They have to carry out the tillage but are short of money. They have had unfortunate trouble in getting rid of their potatoes, and if they do not get the money they will be in difficulty. I am told that the forms which have to be filled in to obtain the subsidy have not been printed. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to hurry the payment to small farmers, if he can. That would be a great help.
Although I agree with what has been said about good farmers who ploughed their land before the date in question not getting the subsidy, I believe that in Northern Ireland we are perhaps better


placed because, owing to the extremely bad weather, very little ploughing was done before 3rd February. We thoroughly support the Bill, although I personally do not like the principle of subsidies at all; I thoroughly dislike it. I believe the answer is to give the farmer the right price for the finished article and not to have subsidies.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) said that in principle he did not agree with subsidies. I was wondering when some hon. Members opposite would say that, but it was not said until the concluding sentence of the hon. Member. I remember that in the last seven years every time any Measure was brought before the House providing for a subsidy, when we were on the other side of the House, hon. Members of the Conservative Party said, "We are utterly opposed to subsidies in general, but we are willing to accept this one." The subsidies were all good in particular, but all bad in general.
I think the Minister will not complain about the Wile of the debate today, but he, like myself, might have wondered why he did not have the support and we did not have speeches from some hon. Members who normally speak in debates on agriculture. I looked around the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was speaking, and though some hon. Members opposite were a little annoyed and concerned when he quoted some speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite and quoted the Tory Party's Agricultural Charter, when he went on to deal with the provisions of the Bill I rather suspected, watching the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), that they had very great sympathy with the views being expressed by my right hon. Friend. But it is a surprising thing that a number of hon. Members who normally participate in debates on agriculture did not come into the Chamber to give us the benefit of their views.
I rather suspect that the farmers of England, Wales and Scotland are not so unanimous in their support of this Bill as the hon. Member for Armagh has said the farmers of Northern Ireland are.

Sir T. Dugdale: They are.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister says in an undertone that they are, but I can assure him that they are not.
I do not want to go on discussing in any controversial way what the farmers of the country think of the Bill. Generally speaking, they like the Bill because they like subsidies, but the more intelligent and far-seeing farmers of this country were never very keen on a subsidy of this kind. I say that the more confidently because I was a member of the Government, albeit a junior one, that introduced the same kind of subsidy about five years ago.
I know, from my discussions with farmers' leaders at that time, that while they said in conference that it was a very good thing, they told me in private that it really was not a good thing and was not in the best long-term interests of agriculture. If the Bill will bring about better husbandry, which is an important consideration, and will give us more cropping on the right land, it will be satisfactory. The question we really have to ask ourselves is whether it will give us better husbandry. I very much doubt whether it will.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, I consider that we cannot possibly go back on the arrangements which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made with the industry in February of this year. Therefore, I think that the first scheme really must be approved by this House. It is significant, however, that so many Members on both sides of the House have said, in praising the Bill today, that it is a good Measure to deal with an emergency. But my right hon. Friend's criticism of the Bill was that it does more than that.
All of us will accept this Bill, and the scheme which is to be submitted under it, to deal with the emergency this year, but it does not follow that we should welcome the proposal contained in the Bill that the Minister can—with the approval of Parliament, I know—make further schemes, and the fact that the Bill can continue indefinitely. I do not think it will be a good thing for agriculture if by means of this Bill we continue indefinitely giving a ploughing-up subsidy of £5, £4 or even £2 per acre.
I do not believe that the ploughing-up subsidy another year would be as high as the £5 being offered this year. That is a special inducement. I cannot think that the Minister would, in a new scheme to be introduced later in the year for the next ploughing season, offer £5 for every acre of grass that was ploughed over. Surely the need for this Bill arises because too much of our farm land has been going under grass. That is conceded, whatever the reason may be—whether bad administration by the previous Government or bad planning by the farmers.
It is right that those of us who went round the country having meetings with farmers and appealing to them to plough up more and produce more of their own feedingstuffs should remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that in those days—in 1947, 1948 and 1949—they were telling the farmers of this country that there was not great need to produce feedingstuffs in this country. They believed that.
I see some hon. Members are shaking their heads to indicate dissent, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper quoted the Tory Party's Agricultural Charter of 1948. It is there clearly stated that the Tory Party believed that there were plenty of feedingstuffs to be had in the world and that though the farmers of this country would have to produce some winter keep in the form of dried grass, silage, etc., there was no need for them to make a conscious effort to produce food grains from the land of this country. That is the whole implication of the Agricultural Charter.
Hon. Members continued to make the same sort of speeches up to October last year. They would be the first to claim that they have some influence with the farmers of this country. If the farmers were influenced by the speeches of Members of the Tory Party in Parliament and in the country, that influence was a bad influence because it resulted in a loss of acreage under tillage.
I recall also, when we introduced our maximum area of pasture Order, which applied only to England because we in Scotland had no Act under which to make such an Order at that time, the bitter discussion and the Division on that Order because the

Tory Party of that time thought and said that the farmer knew best what to do with his land, that it was all very well to have directions in time of war but not in peace-time. So they opposed the Order. By the time the Scottish Order came before the House, the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking for the Opposition, said that he would not oppose the Order, and there was no Division on that Order.
Since the party opposite have crossed to the Government Benches, they have found it necessary to continue the maximum area of pasture Orders. It is surely clear to all of us that the reason for this Bill is that we have not received from those Orders the advantage and benefit which we expected. My right hon. Friend asked about the operation of these Orders in England and Wales. On consulting the Report of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, I found that last year there were 91 directions served under the Order which, the report goes on to say, had the effect of reducing the acreage under grass by some 1,680 acres. But during the same year we lost 38,000 acres of tillage in Scotland. I submit to the Joint Under-Secretary that in Scotland—I am sure it is equally true of England—we really must make much more use of these Orders.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: In order to be quite fair to the work of the agricultural executive committees, would not the hon. Member agree that the Orders were only the extreme measures, and that, through the advice and threats, if one likes to put it that way, of the agricultural executive committees, far more grassland was ploughed up last year?

Mr. Fraser: If far more grassland was ploughed up because of the advice and threats of the executive committees, I shudder to think what a drop there would have been in the acreage without that advice and those threats.
I merely submit the point for the consideration of the Government. It is clear that in saying this my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper and I must be saying it with sincerity, because if blame attaches to the Government about the exercise of their power under the Statutes of 1947 and 1948, and under the pasture Orders, the blame must fall far more heavily on our shoulders. Whichever


party is in office we should exercise the powers given in those Statutes and in the Orders to a greater extent than we are at present doing. It is obvious to anyone who travels about the country that we have far too much land going back to grass and far too much going to permanent grass at present.
One looks at the acreage figures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper referred to the N.F.U. document "Information Service," which is circulated to hon. Members who are interested. One finds that between 1949 and 1951 there was an increase of about 329,000 acres of permanent grass in England and Wales, an increase of 3.1 per cent. Temporary grass increased by 119,000 acres, an increase of 3.2 per cent. During this period, when it was clear to all of us that we had to produce more coarse grains in this country, although hon. Members opposite were giving contrary advice, we find that coarse grains went down by 300,000 acres, or a drop of 6.7 per cent. It is no use hon. Members saying we could have got these coarse grains in the last few years. We have to regard this matter in a responsible manner.
Before the war we imported some five million tons of coarse grains per year. In 1945 we were importing 400,000 tons a year. By 1948, when this Tory Party Agricultural Charter was written, we had got our imports of coarse grains up to about two million tons per year. Almost all of this was coming from America, from the dollar area, and no one will argue that even in those days dollars were easily come by. We had to borrow them, because we had not the dollar exchange. It was absolute nonsense and irresponsible for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to argue at that time, and to tell the farmers of this country at that time, that we could have got additional coarse grains from the dollar area if we had been anxious to buy them. We were getting the most that we were able to get from the dollar area in those years.
If it was easy then, it is surely not too much to expect that it can become comparatively easy again; not next year or the year after, but in a few years. Will the Minister say that there is any prospect in the next few years of getting coarse grains to the extent that we imported them before the war? He will not, because there is no such prospect.
It seems to me that the application of this indiscriminate ploughing subsidy will, in at least some parts of the country, have an entirely opposite effect to that which the Minister desires. He knows better than I do that there are many parts of the country where the farmers work on a seven-year rotation; three years under grass and four years under the plough and then back under grass for three years. There are lazy farmers, or farmers who are not so anxious or industrious or perhaps not so intelligent in their husbandry as others. What will they do? Will they continue to keep their land under grass for another year to qualify for the subsidy'? If they do, that would be contrary to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman desires, and contrary to what all of us desire.
We all wish, and good husbandry demands, that grass should be ploughed up after three years; but if farmers can get a subsidy by leaving their grass down, there are many who will do so. We know from experience that it is an exceedingly difficult job to prevent a subsidy of this kind from being abused. A farmer may very well put down grass for four years, but he may also plough it up in three years and say that it has been down for four years, and who is to say that it has not? It is exceedingly difficult to say whether grass has been down for three or four years. This is the sort of thing which may be operated on a short-term basis, but if an attempt is made to administer a subsidy such as this in the long-term, we may well run up against a great number of abuses, and find that people are claiming money to which they are not entitled.
Another aspect which demands most serious consideration is that when we have a subsidy such as this, there should be a manifestation of awareness on the part of farmers of the necessity for ploughing up their old grass. When we start to run down a subsidy—and I expect that this subsidy will go down in another year—it is not too much to suppose that farmers, who were encouraged to think this was important, will think it less important when the subsidy is reduced to £3 or £4. And when it is taken off altogether—and we have had some experience of this—farmers will think it no longer necessary to plough up their old grassland. They may think the


Minister no longer considers that grass of four and more years is unproductive.
I was interested to hear the Minister talk about this grass as being unproductive grass. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. I consider that the most productive grass is young grass. I wish we had more of it and that farmers would put down short leys and plough up their old grass. They would get, not only very useful grazing, but would be able to cut their grass two or three times in the summer months and obtain grass for drying and silage. When grass has been down for four years, or in some areas for three years—it depends on the soil conditions—it is better in the interests of good husbandry that the plough should be put on the land and perhaps three or four crops taken off it. In that way the best use may be made of the land.
That is the practice generally followed by the best farmers in this country. It is not, however, always the best policy, although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that, generally speaking, it is conducive to good husbandry. There are areas where it would be bad husbandry to do so, and we do not want to encourage bad husbandry by offering too high a financial inducement. But if it is good husbandry to plough it up, we should persuade the farmers that that is so and that they should give effect to it without having to dangle before them the inducement of a subsidy of £2, £3 or £5 an acre.
We should use the educational services and the powers given to executive committees to issue directions if need be. Let us use those powers to see that good husbandry is practised. If it is, then this kind of subsidy will be unnecessary. This subsidy, like many other subsidies, including subsidies given by the Government of which I was a member, is given to agriculture because a very large number of farmers in this country—I would say the majority of them—do not practise the best husbandry. Subsidies are given to induce them to do the right thing by the land which it is their privilege to farm.
By all means let us be aware that these subsidies are not necessarily good. I repeat that we must give effect to the promise which the Minister very properly made to the industry at the

beginning of this year. If he gets 250,000 additional acres, this subsidy will be fully justified. In the circumstances, it is the duty of all of us acting responsibly to support him. But if we give him support, he must not think that it necessarily follows that we should support a long-term grassland ploughing subsidy. He must know that he has many supporters in the countryside who take a contrary view. They take the view expressed forcibly and convincingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper.
There has been a little misunderstanding during this debate. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was wildly inaccurate in his calculations. I regretted that he misled my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) into thinking that by accepting £2,500,000 of Government money and ploughing up another 500,000 acres—as he seems to think—the farmers would produce crops of one ton per acre at £40 a ton and, therefore, they would derive an income of £20 million. That was the calculation of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He trapped my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley into thinking that, by carrying out the wishes of the Minister, the farmers would, incidentally, drop another £20 million into their pockets.

Mr. Wigg: I was not misled. I placed in juxtaposition the figures of the hon. Member for Kidderminster and those of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White). Of course, the figures of the hon. Member for Kidderminster were wild. My point was that it seemed quite extraordinary that hon. Members opposite should come here and say how much the farmers were going to get out of this Bill and then support a policy of giving them £2,500,000 a year for getting it.

Mr. Fraser: I agree. The way in which some hon. Members opposite argued the case was extraordinary. They did not seem to argue at all from the point of view of the national interest. They said that it was a good thing and that "these silly farmers" would not have known that they had another £2,500,000 in their pockets if this wise and beneficent Government had not told them about it, and that, on top of that, they were to get another £20 million. In fact, for many of them there will not be much personal advantage from the additional cultivation, but it will be a great help to the industry generally.
One of my greatest worries in recent years has been about the number of farmers who had substantial cultivation during the war and who, in the post-war period, hurriedly gave up their cultivation and put the plough away, as far as possible, because they themselves did not need the coarse grains which they grew during the war. They did not seem to think that they had a duty to their colleagues, the beef breeders and raisers and the pig breeders.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland will get it across to the farmers that they have a responsibility to their colleagues in the industry. It is absolutely essential for the well-being of the industry as a whole that there should be a considerable increase in cultivation, particularly of coarse grains.
Therefore, at this stage we give this Bill our complete support. We shall have a further look at it between now and the Committee stage and it may be that we shall be able to offer a few Amendments. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said, it pleased us not a little to observe that the Minister has incorporated in this Bill Amendments similar to those we moved to the Agriculture (Fertiliser) Bill which he graciously accepted on an earlier occasion.
As a result, we might find it difficult to suggest improvements to this Bill. However, he will probably find that we shall be able to suggest some Amendments. In any case, unless the Parliamentary Secretary is able to satisfy us, we will pursue a little further our doubt about putting into this Bill the provision which would enable the subsidy to be continued indefinitely, even though it is by means of a Statutory Instrument which could not run for more than two years at any one time.

8.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): It was perhaps a little unkind of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) to allude to the fact that more of my hon. Friends had not taken part in this debate. If he will cast his mind back to 1946, when he was concerned with a not dissimilar Measure, he will recall that his right hon. Friend was given the Bill on the nod. I am delighted

of course that the Opposition, although with qualifications, are supporting the Bill. There are one or two points which I must answer. I must refer particularly to the main burden of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), as well as that of the hon. Member for Hamilton.
They have accused us of being responsible for the fall in tillage acreage. Do they accuse us also of being responsible for the fall in the cattle numbers over the last year? The fact is that the customary tactics have been used—the best form of defence is to attack. As my right hon. and gallant Friend said in his opening remarks, he found a situation where the tillage acreage had fallen substantially and he had to consider what were the best measures to take to reverse this trend. This is one of the measures he proposes to deal with the situation.
The right hon. Member for Belper commented on the Maximum Area of Pasture Order and asked for some figures. He put it perhaps a little unkindly when he asked, "Why pay this special bribe when you have got this Order?" These are the figures. The Order was introduced in July, 1948, and up to 31st October, 1951, there were 481 directions. Of these, 317 have been fully complied with and many others have been substantially complied with. In 47 cases the county committees applied sanctions; in 23 the land was entered and ploughed up; and in 14 convictions were obtained after prosecution. Nine cases were considered unsuitable for prosecution.

Mr. G. Brown: And since October?

Mr. Nugent: I cannot give figures for any period since October but I can say that although, as he knows, this is not a particularly convenient order to operate, we think that it is a weapon of value in the hands of the county committee. Last January my right hon. and gallant Friend sent out a further circular to county committees asking them to make use of it in all appropriate cases. We realise that it is something which can help.
In making comments on our policy, the right hon. Member for Belper used a phrase which struck a familiar note in my ears—and I should have thought it would have done in his ears, too. He accused us of proceeding from one expedient to another. I seem to have heard that before


somewhere. The right hon. Gentleman also asked a technical point about where the £2,500,000 will come from and how it is related to the Price Review. The answer is that it is taken into account in the Price Review of 1952-53 and is counted in the global total of the £39 million award.
On a further technical point of considerable importance, I was asked how the accuracy of applications would be checked. It is true that all administrative schemes of this kind present certain difficulties in operation, but I think the experience of all who have had to do with the farming world is that the vast majority of farmers make honest returns. We are not dealing with a collection of criminals, and it is sufficient to do a sample check. It has been the practice of the Department in the past, in dealing with similar schemes, to do something like a 10 per cent. check on a sample of farms throughout the country. In practice, that has been found to give quite satisfactory results, and we intend to do the same thing.
One or two further points were raised in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had some comments to make about the wisdom of the permanent scheme, and I will deal with that more fully in a minute. He also commented on the need for grassland improvements, and I am sure we all welcome his comments very much. Those improvements are an important part of the whole idea. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) made a most helpful speech, which we welcomed, in which he called attention to the urgent and continuing need for us to get the maximum possible production from our own soil. He felt, as we feel, that in this connection this Bill would be a useful contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked what was the overall shortage of feedingstuffs and whether the increased acreage which my right hon. and gallant Friend anticipates will give a yield sufficient to fill that gap. The answer is that it is quite impossible to give an exact figure, because as more feedingstuffs become available, as the ration scales are increased, so the livestock population increases; and until one gets some measure of freedom into the picture it

is quite impossible to say what would be the final total demand. I can say that my right hon. and gallant Friend is very much inclined to introduce some flexibility on the lines of home-grown coarse grains, whenever the circumstances permit.
The main arguments of the debate fall into two parts. First of all, there is the short-term scheme, which provides £5 an acre for four-year old grassland until the end of this month. I gather that, generally, the Opposition accept that, with some qualifications; nevertheless, they accept it as being a pump-priming operation to meet special circumstances and to get a greater production of cereals, particularly in the coming harvest.
The burden of criticism has been directed at the wisdom of continuing a ploughing subsidy as a long-term measure. I will pass over the first point, as we have been generally in agreement upon it, but on the long-term issue I would point out that the first point we must consider is the economic and financial situation of the country which, in spite of all the grave crises of this kind which have gone before, is certainly the worst we have had. In considering what measures he must take to increase agricultural production, my right hon. and gallant Friend is, therefore, dealing with a situation of quite unparalleled urgency, and when we come to compare what is now foreshadowed with what has been done in the past, that is a point which must be borne in mind.
We have had considerable experience of these ploughing subsidies over the last 12 years, of their strength and of their weakness. They were started in 1939, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite continued them in 1946 with a modification which brought the subsidy down to the three-year ley, and anything over that, from what it had been before —the seven-year ley. In 1947 they stepped up the £2 an acre to £4 an acre, and that was retained until the end of 1949. Indeed, until last February there was a subsidy running on ploughing up old grassland as a contribution towards the fertiliser cost.
We have had quite a long experience of these subsidies, although I shall not use the argument that because the Labour Party did this when they were in office, that is sufficient justification for us to do


it. No doubt they would regard it as a good reason, although it is not one to which they have referred this evening. They have been saying throughout the debate that in their opinion we should better achieve the results by using what they call a sound price schedule instead of using these specific subsidies. Obviously, their experience did not show that, because in fact they used these specific subsidies throughout their term of office.

Mr. G. Brown: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with the real point of the argument. It was not that we should not occasionally have specific subsidies. When I used the argument, he will remember that I was talking about the newly adopted practice of having 40 per cent. of the price recoupment in subsidies. I did not say this method could not be used occasionally.

Mr. Nugent: I must not go outside the question of this subsidy, but I shall deal with it specifically because it is the whole point at issue—whether we shall get a better result by increasing prices by our price schedule and thereby get an increased acreage ploughed up, or whether we shall get better value for the consumer by giving a specific subsidy. That is the point.
When we look at the picture of where the tillage acreage has most declined, we find that in the eastern counties, and particularly East Anglia, where the farms are bigger, the climate drier and the soil easily workable, the tillage acreage has been fully maintained. It has scarcely fallen since the peak level of the war. But as we gradually move west, until we get to the very south-west, we find that there has been a very steep decline, as there has been in Wales, where conditions are particularly difficult.
We all know, in the farming world, that as we go further west, and particularly in the far south-west and Wales, we run into a larger and larger number of small farms. I assure the right hon. Member for Belper that this small farms question is at the heart of the economic problem of the production of our farmlands. About 80 per cent. of our farms are under 100 acres.
If all our farms were something like the same size, or at any rate something like the same soil, with fields something

like the same shape; and if everywhere there was the same climate and the same rainfall, we could quite well proceed entirely by the price schedule. But when we have such tremendously varying conditions, where yields per acre from the small farms on difficult land are probably not much more than one-third or possibly even less than what they are on the best land, we see how frightfully difficult it is to arrange a price schedule which will make it profitable for the small farmer to grow corn and which is reasonable for the man on the big farm.
That is the problem with which we are confronted and with which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were confronted before. We believe that in this picture we have got to create conditions where the small farmer whose tillage acreage has fallen will be able to plough up again. For instance, a man who has considered ploughing a field may have decided after two wet harvests—and, of course, the last two seasons have made it rather worse for him—that he simply cannot face the outlay and the risk when the result is likely to be so unremunerative. We believe that if we give him a subsidy of £5 per acre that will mean cash being injected at the beginning of the process so that he can pay a contractor for ploughing up and sowing the seed, and so get the process started.
It is for those reasons that my right hon. and gallant Friend feels that we are right to consider a ploughing up subsidy as a long-term measure. The exact terms of it will, of course, have to be considered very carefully, and my right hon. and gallant Friend has made it plain that this particular scheme will not necessarily be the form of any future one. In due course he will bring before the House his scheme for the next two years, and that will be the time to decide whether that scheme is the right one.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his right hon. and gallant Friend might well find it desirable to bring forward a scheme at a later date that would provide for giving this subsidy only in respect of certain types of land, because that would be a very different thing from the subsidy we are discussing at the present time? I personally take the view that the best subsidies which were ever given were those particular


directional subsidies which enabled the man on poor land to cultivate his land to the utmost and to make a decent living. I am wondering whether the hon. Member is now suggesting that the longer term scheme might well provide for giving this ploughing up subsidy in respect of only particular types of land.

Mr. Nugent: I was being careful not to suggest anything as to what the future scheme might contain, nor do I feel I would be wise to be drawn even by the wiles of the hon. Gentleman. In due course my right hon. and gallant Friend will put his scheme before the House, and that will be the time to decide on its merits.
I want to say, particularly to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we feel that in this picture we are not only concerned with getting increased cereal acreage, but also with trying to get some of the 13 million acres of permanent grassland ploughed up and back into better grass. That cannot be done with a great deal of it, but there is undoubtedly some which could be ploughed up and returned into far more productive grassland. That is one of the thoughts at the basis of this Bill. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House in the belief that it is a sound Bill both for the short-term scheme and for the long-term scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). —[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants in respect of the ploughing up of land under grass and the carrying out of further operations on the land after ploughing it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of grants, in accordance with a scheme or schemes made by a Minister of the Crown,

in respect of the ploughing up, on or after the fifth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, of land in the United Kingdom under grass (as defined in the said Act of the present Session) and the carrying out of further operations if the scheme so provides, on the land after ploughing; and
(b) of any expenses of administration incurred by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of any scheme under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Butcher.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported.
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section one of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the moneys so payable under the said Act of 1922. —[Mr. Kaberry.]

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL

Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

8.29 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I wish to take this opportunity on the Third Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill to ask one or two questions. I have received a communication from a friend of mine in Australia which relates to this Bill and may be helpful to one or two of the points I wish to raise. As far as I understand the position, this Bill continues the powers set out in the Empire Settlement Acts of 1922 and 1937. Under the parent Act of 1922, the Government was enabled,
in association with the government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions or with public authorities or public or private organisations either in the United Kingdom or in any part of such Dominions, to formulate and co-operate in carrying out agreed schemes for affording joint assistance to suitable persons in the United Kingdom who intend to settle in any part of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions.
It went on to define what kind of schemes they had in mind
development or a land settlement scheme; or a scheme for facilitating settlement in or


migration to any part of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions by assistance with passages, initial allowances, training or otherwise.
In that Act it was laid down that the Government might spend £1,500,000 in the year 1922 and might go on to spend a sum not exceeding £3 million in any subsequent year. Those powers were to operate for 15 years, and, as we know, the powers were renewed in 1937, but, according to my reading of the Empire Settlement Act, 1937, the amount was limited to £1,500,000—which is not surprising, I suppose, in view of the fact that the money was not being taken up.
In the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the present Bill, we have certain figures quoted to show that not nearly that amount of money of £1,500,000, which was set aside, was used. In fact, we find that in 1947 only £34,000 were spent. Varying sums have been spent of less than £1 million a year in the subsequent years, and last year £899,094 were spent; and in the year 1951-52 it is estimated that £560,500 will be spent. This Bill seeks to renew the powers of the 1937 Act.
What I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State is this. Is he satisfied that the sum is adequate for the job it purports to do, and has a close examination been made of the experience over the last three decades to show whether the scheme is as helpful to would-be migrants as possible? Because we do know that this is a matter of wide interest amongst many of our people in the country, especially the young folk, who are told that there are good opportunities in the Dominions to settle down and start a new life with their families—a better chance, perhaps, than in these overcrowded Islands.
In that connection I should like to refer to a letter which, as I have said, comes from a friend of mine on whose word I can thoroughly rely. He was a very good craftsman in this country. His name I shall not disclose for obvious reasons. He writes from his experience over a few years of settlement in South Australia for the benefit of people who have similar intentions. He says that there have been complaints about the food and about the hostility of some of the Australians. This has been widely publicised in the Press He says that that may be misleading.
He thinks that it is mainly a psychological thing, because people are worried,

because it is primarily a matter of not having sufficient capital. He thinks they go out under some misunderstanding about what life is going to be like out there, and he mentions one or two instances of people who may have met with a rough reception from a few uncouth and, apparently, ill-mannered people in the land where they sought to make their residence. He says that our people should not be put off. He says that those who go out to those parts of the world, particularly Australasia, if they have this experience, and then return home, may give an erroneous impression. Indeed, they may suffer themselves from an erroneous impression, because on close acquaintance, and on experience of the people out there, our people will find that, although they are a rather rough mannered people, they are very good friends.
He goes on to say that there is a real grievance arising from financial difficulties. While the wage rates in relation to the cost of living are by no means as high or as generous as they are believed to be in Britain, they are pretty good, and particularly in some of the trades. It would not be competent for me to go into them tonight, but he says that, as far as climatic conditions are concerned, they are especially good for the employment of building workers.
It is useless, he remarks, for a man with three or four small children, for one has to put up with life in a hostel for a time; and it would be difficult for that man to pay his way, and to pay for the high cost of food, and still more difficult for him at the same time to set aside sufficient money wherewith to acquire within a reasonable time a house for his family and a measure of independence of hostel life.
He makes it clear that if a young man and his wife without young children go out there, and only the man is able to work, and he is a good craftsman, he has a reasonable prospect of establishing himself and getting housing accommodation in a comparatively short time and at a not unreasonable rental; but in the case of a family with three or four young children this is exceedingly difficult.
If, on the other hand, the wife is able to work there is ample work for many young women; and so far as the young folk are concerned, if they are of adoles-


cent age and can go to work, the wage rate for juniors is fantastically high.
He says that unless a person has a sufficient amount of capital with which he can help himself and his young family in their early years, he is going to be disappointed; because the cost of living is pretty high there, and although the wage rates are higher than in this country, it becomes a matter of some anxiety to him if he has to pay a high cost for his house.
We need to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the scheme which the Government offer to these folk—assisted passages and so on—and the publicity which is given to it, is sufficiently good or sufficiently well known so that people do not go out there under a false impression; and whether he thinks that the sum for which he is asking tonight is adequate.
I should myself have thought that in South Australia there would have been a greater intake of people, with advantage to them, and opportunities for people who like that sort of roving life and are prepared to go out there and use their skill and enterprise; and I want to know why the money has not been taken up so far, and whether he is satisfied that the utmost is being done to help families whom the Government are anxious should go out there.
It has been said that we need to have not only young folk going out there but a cross-section of the community. At the same time, we need to know whether the Government have made the best use of the money available, and whether something cannot be done by negotiation with the Commonwealth Governments to improve the financial help and the schemes of settlement which have been so far provided.
I hope that the Minister will not mind my quoting this letter tonight, because I think it may be of some use. We are all anxious that the maximum information should be made available to the young folk; because there is nothing worse than for a chap to pack up his job here and go out there, full of radiant hopes and thinking that he is going to a small country where houses are easy to come by and where he can step right

into a job and build up capital which will enable him to have an easy time.
That is contrary to the experience of my friend who tells me that while he went out with a capital of £2,000 and, as a skilled man, was able to pick up a job at £9 a week a few years ago—he has now four young children—and although he has been able to acquire for himself a very nice home and improve on his income to the tune of £14 a week, and is in comparatively good circumstances, he is not able to save much for holidays. That is nothing exceptional. Many folk in this country with much the same income cannot do it.
Perhaps the Minister can give families help in the matter of housing, national insurance, travel and employment in Australia and elsewhere. Is he satisfied that the best is being done. If he is, why has such a meagre amount of money been taken up? Is it that the scheme is insufficiently known, or is it that the scheme has broken down?

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) implied, this is a very modest Bill, and for the objectives that we have in mind it is perhaps too modest. However, we ought not to forget that it has some teeth in it to the extent of £1,500,000 a year, and we ought to ensure that the Minister is aware of the wish on all sides of the House that those teeth should be used to the full.
There is some significance behind the the figures given in the Explanatory Memorandum. In 1950-51 we spent £899,000, and this year the Estimate is down to £560,000, which is negative progress on such an important matter. I am certain that we wish to impress on the Minister that he should give this great attention. In the face of the figures and what has happened over the last five years, it appears likely that, unless special attention is given to it, and unless we apply pressure to the Minister to give it attention, within the next five years there will be no Commonwealth migration policy. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned Australia. The arguments also apply to other Dominions, and I shall be grateful if the Minister can give us an answer covering all the Dominions.
Many questions raised during the Second Reading debate were not answered and, if the Parliamentary Secretary is unable to answer them tonight, I hope that he will give us the details in a White Paper or some other document. I hope he will get down to the realities of the situation and give us a practical scheme, practical in the sense that we can see that we are working on lines which have been thought out.
We did not have an answer to the arguments about the necessity for recognising defence needs and our own overpopulation. We did not have any practical answer to the arguments that the development of the Commonwealth is vital if we are to have full use of its resources. I trust that we shall have some clearer answers to the very practical points raised on Second Reading.
During the Second Reading debate, it was suggested that discussions should take place with the Dominions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour gave the rather nebulous reply that such discussions would take place as the opportunity occurred. We should like a rather more positive approach than that.
There was no answer at all to the repeated request—it is so reasonable that it ought to be answered—that we should have one Minister, or at any rate one Department, responsible for answering questions on migration. One Department ought to be able to feel that the terrific problem of migration is its special responsibility. In giving effect to the Bill, we should like to feel that we can make use of the teeth contained in it by having a Minister who really feels that it is his responsibility to bring all our suggestions together and to take some positive action.
We asked, and there was no reply, that the Overseas Settlement Board should be reconstituted. It has been allowed to fall into default, and I know that in some political quarters it is felt that there is no real function for this board. I am sure there is a very good reason for reappointing this board and letting it get on with the job.
In making those points, we want to keep the arguments in the right proportions. Nobody proposed in the last debate that there should be an over-night mass migration or that vast expenditure should be undertaken. That is not the idea, but we

feel that there is a terrific gap between the general attitude of the Treasury and the practical steps that they could take to set the matter moving. We feel we are in danger of losing by inaction that opportunity that may not occur again, because other countries may well jump ahead of us in filling the vast spaces in the various Dominions for which people are needed today.
I should like to emphasise again my one or two practical and modest suggestions. They could well come within the scope of this Bill. First of all, we should have it made quite clear which Minister is going to be responsible for migration. Secondly, the Overseas Settlement Board should be set up again with the positive duties of encouraging migration by propaganda, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, or any other means, and by providing a really worth-while information service for intending migrants. Thirdly, we should have a White Paper on migration, which could show a more definite long-term policy worked out to decide two main things, first, the rate at which the Dominions can absorb more people—it is vital that we should give it—and the numbers we can afford to let go.
It has been suggested that a cross-section of the community should go rather than only the youngest and the best which, in many instances, we want to keep here as long as possible. On the other hand, we have to be prepared to let some skilled young people go to form portions of the organised groups which will help to populate the Empire and will assist those countries as well as ourselves. We suggested that there should be bilateral discussion by the four Dominions to be definitely held in the near future without waiting for the opportunity to occur, so that we can get down to furthering the Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand schemes. In Canada there are so many opportunities to be grasped that we should take advantage of present conditions to persuade the Canadians to relax their emigration regulations.
These are practical first steps that can be taken well within the scope of this Bill, and we hope that in his reply, my hon. and learned Friend will give us hope that some of the suggestions will be adopted, and one Department will be


made responsible for migration, and that it will go out of its way to initiate discussions with the Dominions and not wait for the opportunity to occur. We think those first steps should be taken after we have given a Third Reading to this Bill tonight.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), because there is nothing in which I disagree with what be has said. I should simply like to take up two minutes of the time of the House to underline a few of the points.
We are unanimous in wishing to see this Empire Settlement Bill made more effective, but we are very modest in our demands. We have not put forward any scheme of mass exodus, for reasons that we explained on the Second Reading of the Bill. Such schemes would not work, and they would put a strain on the Dominions and on ourselves that neither of our economies could withstand. In return for that moderation, I must express my disappointment that neither of the Ministers who replied to the Second Reading debate was able to accept a single one of the suggestions that were made in the debate from all quarters of the House.
I hope they will feel that they will be losing an opportunity if they do not put into effect some of the suggestions that my hon. Friend has just made. They will lose a great deal of the effervescence to migrate that at present exists in this country, and the corresponding effervescence within the Dominions to accept our own people instead of the foreigners whom they are taking in their stead. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State would be proud to come back in five years' time and tell the House that he had spent the £1½ million per year fully and effectively, and that he would not be proud to tell us that he had underspent this money, which is a small sum to devote to one of the most exciting and important schemes of our generation.
I would ask that when we hold, as we must soon hold, this bilateral conference between the United Kingdom and the

different Dominion Governments, it should get down to details of the proposals: details of housing, transport and social services. They should discuss how the Australian scheme, which is the only one operating at the moment under the Empire Settlement Act, could be extended to other Dominions. It might be possible to discuss with Canada how to overcome the Canadian dollar problem and enable our people to go out there to expand industries so that the whole world might make use of their resources.
It might be possible to discuss with Australia the modification of the nomination scheme, whereby hundreds of thousands of people want to emigrate to Australia but, simply because they do not know any individual in Australia, or have no relative or friend there, are bound to stay here. The Empire and ourselves thereby lose the services which they could otherwise perform. I have here a recent paper from Australia, the "Sydney Morning Herald." I see that five and a half pages of this full-size national daily are filled with small advertisements offering people jobs. We have seen that, instead of taking Englishmen to fill the jobs which are daily advertised, Australia has instead had 400,000 foreign people since 1946, although they are longing to take our own people with whom they naturally have close ties of love and affection.
May I refer for one moment to the information service which the Government should set up under the terms of the Bill in order to make known to intending emigrants the facilities and opportunities which are available? The information service would have the effect of a propaganda service. What a tremendous advantage would be gained by using documentary films in order to show to our people in probably the best form of all what opportunities there are overseas. This type of work, the collecting and sifting of statistics and the dissemination of information, could best be done by the re-constitution of the Overseas Settlement Board.
That Board went to sleep at the beginning of the war and has never woken up. It has not been abolished. It is there, like the Sleeping Beauty, simply to be kissed into existence once more. Could not my hon. and learned Friend apply that kiss to the Overseas Settlement


Board? In the past, the Board was simply an organisation to deal with special schemes, but now we are asking that it should deal with information, propaganda, advice to the Government, and with making experiments with individual community groups, sending them out to the Dominions overseas as test groups to pioneer the way once more to a new form of emigration.
In opening the Second Reading debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations used these words:
We … need a vigorous, balanced and enterprising emigration of our own people." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 63.]
But in the proposals which my hon. and learned Friend made thereafter, I did not see any willingness to take the necessary first measures to implement the desire which he himself had expressed in those words. Will he do so now at this second opportunity on Third Reading and assure us that if this money is voted once more, as undoubtedly it will be tonight, he will use it in the best way possible, and while the constitutional links between the United Kingdom and the Dominions are being loosened, at the same time we strengthen those economic, strategic and spiritual links which will make this Commonweath a unity once more?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The hon. Member spoke about propaganda and the use of films for advertising and to help people to understand conditions in the Dominions. Does he think it was a good thing to do away with the Crown Film Unit? Could we not have used it very usefully in propaganda work?

Mr. Nicolson: I do not think that that has much to do with the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is not in the Bill.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: One of the disadvantages of our Parliamentary system is that the life of any Government is somewhat limited to a maximum of, say, five years, which we hope to attain, and the result is that any Government looks at the government of this country only on the basis of a short-term policy. There is not sufficient looking into the future, and I suggest to my hon. and

learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State that, having listened to what my hon. Friends have said, he should take a long-term view, because we are standing now at one of the vital stages in our history. When the first Empire Settlement Act was passed, it was stated that the time had come for scientific planning of population movements. That was 30 years ago, and I do not know what scientific plan has been set up in that 30 years in order to arrange our population movements.
It has been stressed by my hon. Friends that the best method we can use is either to give a kiss to the Empire Settlement Board or to resurrect it. We want something which is really alive, which will look at these problems from the point of view both of this country and of the receiving end, so that bilateral arrangements can be made for a planned migration and not a hit-and-miss sort of migration which takes place now.
We must appreciate that in the Commonwealth we have great empty spaces which we are not filling. Countries in the Commonwealth, like other nations, have come to the stage at which they are nationalist-minded and not prepared to take up the role of being primary producers for the sake of this country. They have ideas and they want a certain amount of industrialism in their own country. We have to face the fact that that industrialism will spread and the demand from the Commonwealth for our industrial products will not be so great in the future as it has been in the past. Those countries, as my hon. Friends have said, are accepting emigration of people from other countries.
I think it essential, if we are to remain a great Commonwealth, that there should be a steady leavening of that migration of the Empire. We form a good component in a concrete mixer and if we get that leavening of British-bred stock in the Commonwealth to integrate with emigrants from other parts of the world, we shall turn them into what the citizens of the Empire have always been, good citizens ready to come to the aid of this old country when danger arises. Therefore, I hope we shall do something much more vital in the years that lie ahead than we have done in the past.
I want to emphasise, as has been said on two or three occasions tonight, that


we are not in favour of mass migration and we are not advocating the spending of a great sum of money. What we do say is that we hope in the future that, contrary to what has happened in the past, the money available will be spent to the best advantage. The great essential in the planning which the emigration board could do with Commonwealth countries is to see that a good cross section of all ages of our population emigrate, instead of just the young and the skilled.
I know it is said by many opponents of emigration that we cannot afford to lose our skilled young men, but that is exactly what is taking place at present. We see advertisements from Canada in this country. A short time ago I believe they advertised for some technicians and had a thousand replies overnight. We do not wish to see that type of man going en masse. We should like to let them go but we prefer some scheme whereby, if they go as pioneers, they can accept their dependants from this country, because it is quite obvious that we cannot carry on a welfare State if we are left with all the old people in this country.
That is one reason why a board should be set up whose duty it would be to get in touch with these countries. What are we doing at present? The Australian Government are spending a vast sum of money on advertising in this country. They have set up machinery in some of our important towns in order to collect emigrants to Australia. They will not collect anything but the best. I believe that if we had an Empire settlement board it could take steps with the Australian Government to see that our best people were not skimmed off. We have to do something to avoid the situation which arose 10 years before the last war when the net migration was to this country, instead of from this country. But in those years, and for many years previously—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is straying a little wide of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Baldwin: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am saying that we want to do something rather more. I want to see a settlement Act to settle some of our population in the Commonwealth rather than to have emigration from the

Commonwealth to this country. In the 10 years before the war we had a policy in which people were coming from the Commonwealth to this country. We were then spending much capital in keeping on the map countries such as the Argentine, who have been against us in two world wars, and we have lost that wealth in their railways. There is Abadan and such places which we were developing—countries which eventually proved of no use to us. We lost all our money which we had sunk there. Let us learn our lesson and spend any capital which we have left to us, after the Chancellor has had his whack, in developing the countries of the British Commonwealth and looking after our friends. If we do that, there will not be emigration from the Commonwealth to this country because when people go to the Commonwealth from here they will create the trade with this country which we want and which we must have if we are to survive.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us some lead and a little more encouragement than we had on Second Reading. I hope that the Government will look on this as a vital problem. I hate to think of this matter, which is vital to our survival as a Commonwealth, being discussed in a House which is practically empty, whereas last night, when we were debating whether a slightly reduced tax should be granted on football, cricket and other sports, we spent hours on the subject, and the House was comparatively full. I should like to see this House full of people who are determined that the Commonwealth shall survive and who will take some interest in it. I appeal to the Press to give us a little more space on this matter than they have given us in the past.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I had not intended to speak in this debate but I must cooperate with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. North (Mr. Edward Davies), in expressing some of the views held on this side of the House. When I came into the Chamber, I fully expected to find the Third Reading debate going exactly the same way as the Committee stage did.
In many respects, though not all, I thought we had a fairly exhaustive


debate on Second Reading. It is extremely interesting, and is something of which the Under-Secretary should take note, that in spite of that very lengthy debate the hon. Members interested in this matter are so persistent that they are still raising the same points.
I thought that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) was on very sound ground when he enumerated a number of points which had been raised on Second Reading and not answered. It is perfectly fair to put the Government "on the spot" and say to them "These questions ought to be answered" either by a White Paper, as the hon. Member suggested, or by other means.
I do not think that the majority of us desire to call for anything in the nature of a vast mass emigration. Certainly those of us on this side of the House do not. I do not think that even anything like a scientific movement of population, whatever that may mean, is what is really wanted. We want something much more adjusted to the moment, something much more empirical, but something which has a serious, longrange purpose. If the Under-Secretary has that sort of idea at the back of his mind, it will suggest to him a fair amount of information on a number of these practical and important points which would he useful to Members of the House.
There was one note which was struck several times during the Second Reading and has been struck in this debate, on which I should like to comment briefly. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) took, I thought, the right attitude about it. A number of other hon. Members opposite seemed to me, if not in their actual language, at least in their emphasis, to be on the wrong track. Several times phrases have been used which suggested that we were, in the last resort, competing as immigrants into the great Dominions with members of other nations, with "foreigners." That sort of phrase has been used several times, even tonight.
The hon. Member for Leominster put the matter in its proper perspective when he talked about the "integration" of our immigrants with those from other countries. It is one of the things we in this country have to remember, that we

must not be too parochial in our outlook about the Commonwealth. If you look at the make-up of Canada, for example, you will find many of the leading citizens, and of the most respected citizens, come from nations other than ours. If you look over, let us say, the names of the commanding officers of Canadian battalions during the war, you will be extremely interested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to find out how wide are their racial origins.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should be very interested at the appropriate time, but this is, of course, a one-Clause Bill to extend a period.

Mr. MacPherson: I accept your rebuke, Sir, but I was commenting on a point which was made on Second Reading and during this debate. I think it would be fair if I concluded this particular part of my remarks by saying that we should avoid the temptation to think of setting ourselves up against foreigners who may come into the great Dominion and that we should think rather in terms of the phrase used by the hon. Member for Leominster.
I agree with the idea that the Empire Settlement Board should be, as someone suggested, kissed into life or activity. There is a real reason and justification for having a live organisation to handle our end in this matter of migration within the Commonwealth. It is an extremely important matter, not simply of filling up spaces but of developing them, a development which will greatly benefit ourselves, the Dominions concerned, the Commonwealth as a whole and the world as a whole.
Putting things on what one might term their very lowest value, we can at least take it that we in this country have something besides material goods to export to the newer parts of the globe. We have our civilisation, a way of life which expresses itself in a number of diverse ways, and our experience could assist the building up of new ways of life in the Dominions. Incidentally, I do not think we do enough in this country in the way of adapting ideas from the Dominions; but I think we could try to put some organisational life into the process of enabling some of our citizens, and if possible a cross-section, to establish themselves in the newer countries. At the same time, they could take along with


them a great many of the ideas which we have found important guiding ideas here, and which may well be important guiding ideas in the newer, and possibly in the future, greater countries.
I would therefore emphasise the point which was made by hon. Members opposite, that there should be a more lively and vigorous organisation and that in particular the Empire Settlement Board should be re-established.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I hope that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson) will forgive me if I do not follow him, but I wish to make two points. I hope that the money which is being continued by this Bill for a further five years will not be used in a vain endeavour—and I am afraid it is partly vain—to try to reach the target of getting a large cross-section of the public to emigrate. There is much less chance today than there was 100 years ago of getting young and old to emigrate together. About 100 years ago whole families went together. My ancestors went to New Zealand. I hope that we shall not be under any delusion about this matter. Generally speaking, the only people willing to emigrate today are young people who are setting out to make a new life in one of the great Dominions.
I am disappointed that this work cannot go faster. I think that we all understand the reasons for the delay, but I am sure that the Government will not regard this as being purely an expenditure on Empire settlement as such. It is in fact an expenditure on defence and a general safeguard against war. War is a great enemy of Empire settlement. If we spend £1,500,000 on Empire settlement this year, who is to tell how many of the people concerned will come back to this country if there should be a war in two or three years' time? It happened that the whole of my family, with the exception of myself, came back to this country. I had returned earlier, but the rest of my brothers came back from New Zealand because of the war and have never returned.
The greatest enemy of Empire settlement is the possible recurrence of war and, strangely enough, one of the great

safeguards against war is this very Measure. By helping Imperial settlement we are building up the strength of this the greatest assembly of nations in the world.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: My intervention will be brief. I merely wish to underline what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), who, in a way, initiated this discussion on Third Reading. The figures which he quoted from the Explanatory Memorandum certainly appear on the face of it to be extremely disappointing. During the past five years, including the estimated expenditure for the present year, the existing powers have permitted the Treasury to allocate £7,500,000. Assuming that this year's expenditure is that which has been estimated, we shall have spent about £2,500,000. That is merely one-third of the possible expenditure permitted by existing law.
Of course, there is a material phrase in the Memorandum:
subject to the consent of the Treasury.
The House will well appreciate that in times of financial difficulty, a sterner and more stringent view may be taken by the Treasury. When this Bill was renewed in 1937 the value of money was somewhat different. The House of that day decided to spend £1,500,000. That would be equivalent to a larger sum today. On the other hand, in opposition to that argument, our financial position today is rather worse than it was in 1937 and the Treasury are entitled to set off one consideration against the other.
Be that as it may, as the Government are asking again for permission to spend £1,500,000, we should like an assurance that as soon as our financial and economic position becomes less stringent, the Government will exercise the powers for which they are now asking in this Bill to which apparently the House is delighted to give a Third Reading. I think that is a pertinent observation on Third Reading. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, stressed that it was a generally disappointing picture, and I think the Bill was described on Second Reading as a rather pathetic Bill by more than one speaker. It must not be regarded as pathetic, because the object


is not to finance the whole measure of emigration but to co-operate with other • Commonwealth governments or organisations. Viewed in that light, the permitted £1,500,000 may seem more generous and more useful.
The House, on Second Reading and again tonight, showed that it is in favour of this measure. It is also obvious that the House realises that the well-being and the health of the Commonwealth demands some re-deployment and redistribution of our population—not a mass migration, but some substantial re-deployment. It is to be hoped that, within the scope offered by the Bill, migration will be reasonably advanced during the period for which powers are sought.
One thing which disappointed me on Second Reading was that while the House was enthusiastic, the country was either uninterested or had little knowledge of it—and that underlines the case made by more than one speaker that this must be widely advertised. The day has gone when people would easily and willingly emigrate. In the old days they emigrated by reason of adverse circumstances at home, religious and all kinds of reasons; but today they have to be persuaded to seek a new life in another country. Perhaps some of this money could, with benefit, be devoted to publicising the advantages, for some of our people at any rate, of emigrating to the lands of our Commonwealth beyond the seas. Otherwise, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Under the original Act of 1922, it was possible to spend a sum of £3 million on emigration to the Dominions, so that we have undertaken a measure of retrenchment in recent years in reducing that amount until it is now £1,500,000, with the value of the £ much lower.
In supporting the Bill, I should like to emphasise one or two points which have been made by previous speakers. I feel that we should publicise much more what the position is in the Dominions. We should put fairly and squarely before the people that they are not going out to an easy life. They are going out to a hard life. In two of these Dominions I have seen the settlers roughing it, and some of them were disappointed because they had

expected that they were going out to a life much easier than the one they left. That is entirely wrong. Very often they go out as pioneers, and for a time they have to rough it. It is those people who set out with the knowledge that they will have to rough it for some years who make the best settlers.
In publicising the emigration scheme, let us put the facts before the people. The brochures issued by the Dominion Offices do not put the facts as they are. They picture lovely places and scenery and state what good wages and good living are offered. But it is altogether different when people get out there. That is how they finish up, but where they have to start is quite different. Therefore, let us be fair to those settlers, and let them understand before they go out that they are going out as pioneers to a new land.
It is a great life to anyone who can enter into it, but what the Dominions want most of all are agricultural workers. and we want them here. It is the same old problem. In Australia, certain parts of which, I know, are uninhabitable, there are 15 persons to the square mile. In this country there are more than 700 to the square mile. When our people go out to Australia they tend to go to the coast, as I said in a previous debate. Roughly 85 per cent, of the population of Australia live within 100 miles of the coast.
It is the interior that wants developing and to do that we have to send out, not our urban dwellers, but our rural dwellers. But we want them here because we are losing them fast enough as it is. That is one of our difficulties. Both this country and the Dominions must try to change the outlook of these people so that they may realise that the main problem facing them is the development of the agricultural resources of the Commonwealth. Only when we do that shall we accomplish the real object.
The Dominions themselves must be agreed partners. People leave this country and go to the Dominions not merely to rough it in hostel living or, as I have seen, in shack living. They go out to a completely different social life. The social life in Australia is completely different from that in this country. The contrast is not so great in New Zealand. One of the things the urban dweller misses is the social life. He gets to a


town which is 20 or 30 miles away from the cinemas, theatres and churches and he wonders where he has got to. But if he is going out to do some real development he is not 20 or 30 miles away from such amenities, but 200 or 300 miles.
These things are not usually realised by our people because we live in an island which is easily accessible from one side to the other by transport. They just cannot understand a continent like Australia with its vast spaces, and only when they come up against it do they realise where they have landed. That is one of the main reasons why in the pre-war years Australia's immigration balanced her emigration. The only increase in her population was the natural increase. That is going to happen again unless the Dominions themselves take a greater interest in the emigrants who go there.
I hope this Empire Settlement Board will be set up and that we shall have men and women on it who understand both the problems of the Dominions to which our people go and the outlook of our people who emigrate, because, unless we are able to wed these two things together, this scheme along with others like it will fail.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The debate, in a sense, has been a general debate on emigration as a whole. Before coming to the more general aspects, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the particular subject of the debate, namely, the passing of the Bill on Third Reading. I think that that will be of help to hon. Members in consideration of the way the money has been spent under the Act and the way in which it is proposed to be spent under this Bill to renew the Act under which we are already working.
The original Act of 1922 provided, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) rightly said, £3 million in any one year on schemes in which the United Kingdom Government would spend up to half and the Dominion Governments—as they were then—would spend up to the other half. Of course, the proportion was left to the United Kingdom to decide. Therefore, in answering for instance, the hon. Gentleman the

Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), as to whether the amount has been adequate, it is, I think, necessary to examine how the money has been spent.
The arrangement with the Australian Government, which is the only scheme in operation, is a scheme that was made first in 1947 and was renewed last year under the late Government for another period of three years. The limit of the United Kingdom Government's proportion was £500,000, and under this scheme certain approved emigrants—approved both by the Australian Government and by the United Kingdom Government—were to receive free passages, subject to a small payment by the emigrant—an amount, I think, of £10—and the United Kingdom Government paid £25 and the Australian Government paid the balance. Therefore, all the emigrants whom the Australians were anxious to pay for, in the sense of paying for their passage, were accepted, and, as far as I know, there was no backlog of approved emigrants in any one year.
I am sure the House is with me when I say that we do not want to force any emigration from this country. It has to be voluntary. Therefore, the scheme as it has been working is that emigrants are approved, as I said, by both Governments; they get assisted passages, subject to this small deposit; and, therefore, there is not a great reservoir of emigrants who are eligible who are unable to go because there has not been enough money. The suggestion, I think on both sides of the House, was rather that the money has been rather niggardly spent, and could have been spent on more passengers eligible for the free scheme.

Mr. Edward Davies: I do not think that that was the point some of us had in mind. What we had in mind, and the point of my friend's letter, was that when the people get there they are in some kind of difficulty because they lack some working capital or sufficient money to buy a house. It is not a case of getting there, for £10 is easy enough; but when they get there they have to subsist in these wretched hostels. as they have described.

Mr. Foster: It must be remembered that, at the present stage of our financial


position, it would be quite impossible, I should have thought, to provide large sums for emigrants to go to the Dominions. I think that that is really the difference between some hon. Members and the policy of both the last Government and this Government—that, having regard to our financial position, it does not seem to me possible that one should, for instance, provide an emigrant with a large amount of working capital when he gets to Australia. The best use, it seems to me, one can make of the money is to provide the would-be emigrant with a free passage. That gets over the handicap of distance, and when he gets to the other country, he comes to conditions where employment is easy; it is virtually easy under all reasonable conditions to get a job, and then he has to make his way in Australia like the rest of the population.
I agree that the change of environment of which the hon. Member for Chorley spoke, and the change of circumstances —the uprooting from his mother country —does, of course, make certain difficulties of adjustment, but I do not think it can be accepted that at the present moment the United Kingdom can go beyond the provisions of the Act and go in for some other scheme of large-scale financial assistance to would-be emigrants.
Of course, if we examine the economic implications and leave out the circumstances, which, I agree, are so very important, about the desirability of stocking the Dominions, defence aspects, and so on, and restrict ourselves to the economic aspect, it is very debatable whether the emigration of even a balanced cross-section, looked at purely from the point of view of economics, is of great advantage to this country. Certainly, if we get the emigration of skilled workers or single unskilled workers, I think that from the economic aspect, the emigration of these individuals is to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the advantages from the point of view of the Commonwealth, our civilisation and our common heritage are very great. I am now making the limited point that the purely economic advantage is very doubtful, even if we get this cross-section of emigration.

Mr. Gower: Surely my hon. and learned Friend recognises that if we have

orderly emigration from this country in groups, we have to import less food to feed them, and we are sending them to a country which produces food.

Mr. Foster: That is one of the arguments in the economic field for emigration, but, on the other hand, if it is so regarded, the fact is that every emigrant is a producer, and presumably he produces enough, by and large, to keep his family; and also a considerable amount has been invested in bringing him up to majority or working age, so that he represents quite a considerable capital interest. Then, if we look at it from the point of view of the Dominions, they have to be careful of the rate at which they absorb the emigrants.
It has been calculated by some—and there are so many imponderables that these calculations can only be vague estimates—that every emigrant and his family represent a capital investment of £3,500 to £5,000. Of course, the capital one attributes to the population is about four times the national income, but if we calculate on that basis, some economists are of the opinion that that is the sort of rate of investment in a country of the standing of Australia for each emigrant.
I do not attach any particular value to any precise estimates because there are so many variables that it is impossible to give any figure which is even approximately accurate, but I think it must be clear that in each particular case our emigrant represents a considerable capital investment for the receiving country: the building of houses, the provision of services, public utilities and so on.
I have strayed into the general aspect of emigration and I should like now to return to certain aspects of the Bill. The answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, is that we assist the working of the scheme by allowing every emigrant who is desired by Australia and approved by this country to have a free passage. The approval of the United Kingdom is only withheld if the person is subject to National Service or if he belongs to a special category which it would not be in the national interest to encourage to emigrate.
Such a man is free to go if he wants, but he will not be encouraged to go by


being given a free passage. A miner is a typical instance. Any miner is absolutely free to emigrate to Australia—there is no legal hindrance to that—but he would not receive approval from the United Kingdom and be given a free passage. The House will probably agree that that is a reasonable policy.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), regretted that the money had been under-spent. The answer is that in connection with this scheme, which is worked with Australia, every eligible applicant gets a free passage. There is, therefore, no question that under-spending the money has prevented eligible and desirable emigrants from getting to Australia without any cost to themselves, except a small initial payment.
As to the other Commonwealth countries, no scheme has been worked out with them, and, as far as I know, no proposals have been made by them for cooperation with us in a scheme. Hon. Members will appreciate that the Bill is limited to schemes worked out on a 50-50 basis—the maximum share for this country is 50 per cent.—official schemes sponsored by Governments or by official agencies. In the case of a scheme with a private agency, the Treasury are empowered to spend up to 75 per cent. The Act of 1937 altered the basis from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. in the case of private schemes.

Mr. P. Bartley: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to convey that because a man happens to be in the mining industry, he is precluded from obtaining financial assistance under the Bill as an emigrant to Australia?

Mr. Foster: The man is excluded from the provisions if he comes within a category of persons which the United Kingdom Government will not encourage to emigrate. The relevant provision refers to persons "whose services may be urgently needed in the United Kingdom in the national interest." From the hon. Member's tone, I gather that he feels that there may be a grievance about that.

Mr. Bartley: It is a form of restriction. It is a penalty for being a miner. There may be some occupations in the industry which are not so essential as

others. Surely people in those occupations should come within the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Foster: That is a matter of opinion. I appreciate the hon. Member's point of view, but I should have thought that at a time when certain classes of. people are so essential to our survival, it would be shortsighted for us to encourage them to emigrate by giving them free passages. This strikes me as being essentially sensible. There is no legal hindrance to their emigration. There is no red tape and they do not have to get permission, but they do not get the encouragement of a free passage.

Mr. J. Slater: Do we take it from the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that, as a class, miners are more or less confined within a ring fence and that they cannot have Government assistance if they want to emigrate?

Mr. Foster: I mentioned miners as an illustration of the policy. I imagine that what happens is that the Australian Government ask for certain categories of people and the United Kingdom provide the Australian Government with a list of the people whom they consider should not in the national interest be assisted to leave the country. There is no mystery about it and it seems to me a very sensible policy. It is not that the miner is ringed by a fence if he is minded to go and willing to pay for himself. He can go, but he is not in the class who can get a free passage.
I do not think that is a great hardship, because the miner's value to this country is recognised by this principle and it would apply to a good many other classes at this stage. It would be rather shortsighted—I gather that this was the policy of the previous Government—if we encouraged the emigration of these very classes of workpeople whom we want to increase here at home. That would be cutting our throat economically. There it is, and hon. Members naturally are free to disagree with that opinion.
I wanted to deal with some of the constructive points which have been put by hon. Members, not, I think, within the compass of this Bill exactly, but in what I might call the larger aspect of this debate. My hon. Friend the Mem-


ber for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson) wanted the Government to present a White Paper on emigration. That sounds a very useful suggestion, and we probably can satisfy that need.
In the White Paper we might give the statistics of previous emigration which are in existence already, but it might be convenient to collect them in a White Paper and also in it outline the emigration policy as it is at the moment. We might be able to give it by agreement with Commonwealth countries and we could also state the arrangements made for publicity, information and propaganda, subjects which were alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in his Second Reading speech. Naturally, I am not binding the Ministry to an exact form of White Paper, but rather I am thinking aloud as to the kind of White Paper which might be useful.
I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that a great deal of information is given through the Ministry of Labour, and that we certainly will look into the matter of whether some further form of board or organisation should be set up to help with emigration policy. Many hon. Members spoke of the Overseas Settlement Board, and it is an idea worth taking up as to whether the resurrection of that Board would be worth while. One has got to be careful in modern government not to set up too many committees and boards, and at the moment the work is done by the two main Ministries, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Ministry of Labour.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough that we look on the Commonwealth Relations Office as the main Ministry for emigration, and if hon. Members have any question or want information or are consulted by constituents about emigration, we at the Com-

monwealth Relations Office would be able to deal with it and get in touch with the other Ministries if the questions affected them. In that sense hon. Members can look on my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations as the Minister for Emigration. Details of administration and of the collecting of people is done by the Ministry of Labour, but we will certainly act in a liaison capacity with that Ministry as the main Ministry responsible for emigration.
Without reiterating the Government's general policy of encouraging this vigorous cross-section emigration, we can say that if we produce a White Paper, assure the House that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is the Minister for emigration, and consider the setting up of the Overseas Settlement Board again —I will bring that point certainly to the attention of my noble Friend—we are going a long way to meeting the requests of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should take migration seriously in hand.
The question of giving further financial assistance is beyond the scope of the Bill and must depend upon the general financial situation of the country. It is worth bearing in mind that the other Commonwealth countries, like Canada, New Zealand and Southern Rhodesia, have been active at various times in obtaining migrants from this country and have seen to it, through their own efforts and with the help of the Ministry of Labour, that they got the right type of migrant. It is a question of great interest, naturally, to hon. Members of this House, and rightly so, and I say on behalf of the Commonwealth Relations Office that we welcome the suggestions which have been made and shall endeavour to profit from the proposals which hon. Gentlemen have put forward.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.54 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: While we welcome the Bill and give it a Third Reading enthusiastically, I should like to put one or two points to the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the increased expenditure which is now being made available to the Ministry. I would congratulate his right hon. Friend on the great interest he is showing in new towns. His visits to two new towns are very much welcomed by the development corporations, as I know from my own personal experience. It is encouraging to them to feel that the Minister is taking such a first-hand interest in the work which they are undertaking.
On the Second Reading of this small Bill, stress was laid by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House on balanced development for these new towns, and in that balanced development the development of social activity is of the greatest importance.
The new town development corporations came into being only because the local government machine has not had at its disposal, either in staff or in rateable value, sufficient resources to enable it to absorb the development and to provide the resources for the area. It is because of that that the development corporations ought to undertake quite a large number of these social developments. There is, perhaps, a Departmental tendency to say that the normal government functions should be undertaken by the normal local government machine, and if the local government machine is capable of absorbing them I would entirely agree with that.
The new towns vary considerably. I learn from the local Press that the Department are not agreeing to expenditure by the Hatfield Development Corporation on the provision of playing fields. Side by side with it is the Welwyn Garden City New Town Development Corporation. Hatfield is a parish council, while Welwyn Garden City is an urban district of long standing and considerable rateable value.
It is quite probable and possible for the Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council to undertake social functions in regard to, say, playing fields which the Hatfield Parish Council cannot undertake. To put it bluntly, in Hatfield the parish council are without the financial resources but have the power to provide playing fields, while the urban district council have the resources but not the power. The present discussions seem to show that the development corporations were willing and anxious, and, in fact, promised, to provide the initial equipment for playing fields, which are essential when an industry comes into a town like Hatfield. A young industry—De Havilland's, for example—with virile workers is anxious to have the facilities of playing fields. The development corporation is anxious to provide them, but the Department do not agree.
That is a rather restrictive policy, and I feel that in providing the moneys under the Act and, now, under the Bill, the intention of Parliament was that according to the resources of the area the development corporation should assist the local authority, particularly when it is a parish council, in the provision of some of the normal local government functions which could not be provided by the local government machine.
The same sort of thing happened in the adjoining new town of Welwyn Garden City. When it was first started, the old Garden City Company had to provide the playing fields and facilities, otherwise there would not have been any because the initial resources of the urban district council were so slight. I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary may not have details of that particular case, and I do not press him, but it is on that type of activity that I should like an assurance from him on the general principle.
We feel that the money allowed for in the Bill ought not to be used only for the provision of houses, roads, sewers, shops and the rest. It should be used for social amenities such as playing fields and in assisting the development of halls for social activities, so that the new towns, which are developing and which have no history or general development behind them, can form their own local consciousness and develop into units with some central social activity.
I welcome the Bill and conclude, as I opened, in congratulating the Minister on the activity he is already showing in encouraging these new towns in normal development, and I bring this to his attention thinking that he will take advantage of the opportunity to rectify it.

10.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am obliged to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) for the kindly references to my right hon. Friend. I will convey them to him when I see him tomorrow morning. I also take the opportunity of thanking the hon. Member, my predecessor in the office I hold, for his cooperation in getting this Bill expeditiously through the House, because he, with his long experience of local government and all the constructional activities of local authorities, knows full well that every hon. Member is behind the new towns in principle.
We disagree of course as to some of the methods of implementing the principle and some of the administrative steps taken, but in general the entire House is in agreement with the principle. My right hon. Friend has shown that by visiting most of the new towns, and he proposes in the course of the next few months to complete his visits to them all. He is doing his best and will be most appreciative of the generous tributes paid by the hon. Member.
The question I am asked on Third Reading is whether we intend to have a balanced development in the new towns, and the answer is, undoubtedly, yes. But the hon. Member must realise that there are inherent difficulties in having a planned development in a new town and bringing it forward in the correct stages. There are great inherent difficulties in building a new town. It is difficult to bring together at the same time services such as roads, sewers, disposal of sewage, water supplies, the building of shops and houses, the supply of amenities and of schools; first the roads will be ahead and then the houses will be ahead and the roads left behind.
At the moment, the new towns are suffering from lack of amenities for the inhabitants. That is a problem which my right hon. Friend recognises, but we are trying in the Department to reduce the number of technical checks which are

imposed by the Department, not only on the new towns but on local authorities. My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that in the past local authorities and the new towns have sent in their plans for housing and then the technical officers of the Ministry have made a technical check. It is not satisfactory when one architect is taking another architect's work. What we are trying to do in the Ministry—and my right hon. Friend is stressing the point —is to see if it is possible to apply an administrative check on the actual checking of the cost of the scheme sent in by the new towns and local authorities and to give greater freedom to them both.
So my answer to the hon. Member is that we are trying to give greater freedom to the new towns in selecting how they will spend their money. It must be borne in mind that if they spend more money on social amenities they may have less to spend on such things as housing and roads. It is difficult to give more amenities in addition to the level of work they are already undertaking. It is not only a question of money. The money provided under this Bill must be matched by resources and if some of the social amenities which are wanted require a great deal of steel, it would be extremely difficult to give permission to carry out that building if it meant that there would be fewer houses or perhaps less water supplies, or sewerage, or something of that nature.
Therefore, the amount of work to a large extent is governed by the supply of steel and of timber. Subject to those materials being available in sufficient quantities, I do not think the hon. Member will find my right hon. Friend is unsympathetic to the point of view he so lucidly and moderately expressed. But each case must be taken on its merits; one must strike a balance of advantages in each case. If the hon. Member would be kind enough to send details of the cases he mentioned we will have a look at them again, because I expect the decision of those cases was made when the technical check imposed by the Department was more stringent than it will be in the future. We are trying to get greater elasticity and flexibility in the future than there has been in the past.
I wish to conclude by again expressing my appreciation of the attitude of the hon. Member for Wellingborough in


assisting the Government to get this Bill through all its stages in the House and achieve what we all desire—the rapid expansion of the new towns.

Mr. J. Slater: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what consideration the Minister has given to the appeals made during the Second Reading debate about the rents being charged for houses in the new towns, and whether he is prepared to give assistance to the new town corporations by means of an increase of subsidy as compared with the subsidy given to local authorities?

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is watching the question of rents, not only for the new towns, but in the case of local authorities as a whole. One of the reasons why he has gone out of his way to stress the importance of the new so-called People's House is because it results in a smaller rent for the occupant not by giving an increased subsidy but by reducing building costs. The answer to the problem of high rents is not necessarily always an increase of the Exchequer subsidy, because if an increase is to be automatically given when costs rise there seems to be an unfortunate tendency for costs always to rise. The answer is to reduce building costs by a stable financial policy.
My right hon. Friend is devoting a lot of his time to seeing whether it is possible to keep building costs at their present level, or to reduce them. How successful he will be depends on the success of the monetary policy as a whole. We all agree that the rents which are having to be charged in some new towns are beyond the means of most of the people who want the houses. The question is, what method can we adopt to reduce the rents? I am not sure that an increased Exchequer grant is necessarily the way to do it. A freer flow of materials to the builders, a reduction in building costs and the better planning of houses will achieve that. My right hon. Friend has that matter very much in mind.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SHIPS' STORES (CHARGES)

Ships' Stores (Charges) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 750), dated 8th April, 1952 [copy presented 10th April], approved.—[Dr. Hill]

Orders of the Day — CRUELTY TO CHILDREN

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

10.10 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Once in a while the public conscience is shocked by some savagery perpetrated upon helpless children by parents or foster-parents. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the "Daily Mirror," which is not a paper I am accustomed to reading in the ordinary way, but which on this subject appears to have something important to say. On 15th June, 1951, it said:
Is there anything more pitiful than a child which is being badly treated? Is there anything which gives people more distress and makes them more indignant than a case of cruelty to children? We ask ourselves how it is possible for an adult to vent malice and spleen on innocence and helplessness, and put clouds of pain over little eyes which should be clear and happy? But it is possible. It is done. The courts this year have provided so many dreadful examples that the whole nation has been disturbed and upset.
Sentences are sometimes held to be adequate by the general public and on some occasions the public takes a contrary view. However, before discussing penalties, I think we must try to find some of the causes of this unnatural and un-British conduct. There appear to be two or three main types of cruelty: neglect, either from ignorance or incompetence of parents, and in this case the lack of elementary knowledge is sometimes appalling and sometimes other interests—for example, drink and gambling are obvious distractions.
Some children are left alone for long hours. This is a serious cause of cruelty and its lasting effect upon the child is not always appreciated by callous or stupid parents. Finally, there is the parent who possesses no self-control and inflicts pain and suffering for no other reason than ignorance and low mentality or sheer delight. For some of these people education is the only remedy. I should like to quote a case to the Parliamentary Secretary.
An N.S.P.C.C. inspector found in one home that the bedroom of the parents was in a splendid condition but that the rest of the house was a reeking cesspool of filth. The lavatory was blocked and could not be used, and one of the


children's bedrooms had been used in substitution. The inspector said it was difficult to describe the rooms. The ceilings in most of the rooms were black and covered with flies, the grate in the living room could hardly be seen for rubbish, and the table was piled high with filth, as if several pig bins from the street had been emptied on it. The father, however, averred that with his own hands he had cleared the table four months previously.
The inspector was able to discuss this matter amicably with the parents and was able, without a prosecution, to cause the family to mend their ways, and I am happy to tell the House that the conditions now obtaining in this home are such as we would like to see in many of our homes.
But the policy of educating these people is a long-term one, and it will be many years before we can hope to get any reward from that policy. However, in many cases of neglect it is claimed by the N.S.P.C.C. that bad housing is a prime cause, and I think we must pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the strenuous efforts which are being made to improve the housing conditions of the people of this country.
I do not wish to introduce a political or any jarring note into this short debate, but I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to try to use their influence with the editor of the "Daily Herald" to see that the new housing programme figures are given to the readers of the "Daily Herald." They were not given last week and it was the only newspaper in this country which did not publish the housing figures on Saturday. That is a very bad thing for the "Daily Herald." It may be that the imminence of the local government elections had something to do with it. However, it is a fact that if we can improve the housing conditions of our people and increase the number of houses available, and do that quickly, we shall go a long way to solving this very dreadful problem.
In some cases ordinary education is perhaps not the answer. Sometimes brutes are involved and the law must exact its full toll. On occasion there has been public disquiet at the degree of some of the penalties awarded, but it is unfair for the ordinary reader of a news-

paper simply to read the Press reports of a case giving the bare facts and then to try to assess the degree of punishment which should be inflicted. The N.S.P.C.C. and those closely associated with this problem accept the fact that the law as it is at present is adequate for the purpose if it is properly applied.
Many of these offences are brought under certain Acts which do not permit the imposition of very serious penalties. I am sure that the whole House will be glad that the N.S.P.C.C. now intend to prosecute under the Offences Against the Person Act, which enables more severe penalties to be inflicted. Lord Goddard once said:
If magistrates will make freer use of their powers and if prosecutors will consider putting forward different charges, more serious charges, more appropriate charges, when serious crimes are committed against children, a great deal of the agitation in the public mind upon this subject will be found to die down, and people will be satisfied.
Public opinion must be roused to the importance of this issue and made to realise that so long as one case remains it is a blot upon our civilisation and we are not entitled to call ourselves a Christian people. The Press and radio do a great service in focusing this problem in the public mind. I hope that television with its great and growing influence will join in this battle to prevent needless and heartless suffering.
I beg our school teachers, who are already overburdened with extra duty, to play an even greater part in helping to solve this problem than they do at present. They see the children day by day and should be able to detect at once cases of neglect and cruelty. To stamp out this menace we must rely upon these matters being reported. Although we all try to avoid getting into other people's troubles, nevertheless in this we have a moral and social obligation. We must recognise also in our social life the importance of the Boy Scout movement. the Girl Guides and also the Salvation Army.
We all have a great part to play as individuals. We must help in every way possible to stamp out this menace which I am sorry to say appears to be growing. At the same time, we must give a great deal of credit to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has done splendid


work for many years, sometimes with very small funds and, in some areas, surrounded by hostile public opinion. I am sure that the general public recognise that this great body is not solely a prosecuting society but that it is one which aims, as its name says, at the prevention of cruelty.
I make no apology for raising this subject again. The public conscience must be awakened to the seriousness of this problem if it is to play its part and if we are to see a solution.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I am grateful to my political neighbour the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), for reminding me that he proposed to raise this important subject today. I want to deal with one point only in the short time I propose to speak. The point which impressed itself upon me most of all, on learning of these unhappy cases, was the fact that the cruelty had not been the result of a single action, perhaps of a parent losing his temper, but had been going on for weeks or months. We read a little time ago of a case in which a child had been done to death. As was shown at the inquest, that case had been going on for many weeks, until the child was finally buried in a slag heap.
The result of cruelty means a scar on the mentality of the child, which lasts right through its life. We cannot suppose that these cases of persistent cruelty have gone unnoticed for long periods. The neighbours must have heard the child or seen it. What about the shopkeeper of the little shop round the corner, who knows everything? There is no doubt that these cases of cruelty are known.
Nor must we conclude that the people who know are callous. I am quite sure that they are not. The whole trouble, it seems to me, is that there is no one to whom suspected cases of cruelty can be reported. As the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South, said, in many cases the representative of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children does admirable work, as is well known, but in other cases the difficulty is for the authorities to get to know of these cases in time in order to take action so that irrevocable damage is not done.
I remember reading not very long ago of a very bad case. It affected those of us who were members of the London County Council very directly, and it concerned two little girls boarded out in the Putney area. They were very badly treated by the foster mother, and one of them was almost dying when the case came to light. The difficulty was that the good lady who recognised what was going on did not know where to report it until, in the end, she discovered where one of the children was at school and reported the matter to the school. At once the whole matter was known, the case was taken up, and one of the children, who was in bed, was taken to hospital at once. That child's life was saved with very great difficulty.
I feel strongly that in every area there should be some authority, well known to the people of the area. to whom cases can be reported. A few years ago a very valuable circular was issued by the Home Office stating clearly that, as a result of investigation, it was clear that there were sufficient powers to deal in any way necessary with all these cases of cruelty. It was suggested that in every area a co-ordinating officer should be appointed so that all the agencies could work together in all such cases. What that valuable circular did not say was to whom those cases were to be reported—and that is a matter to which I should like the representatives of the Home Office to give special attention.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Both hon. Members who have spoken so far have performed the most valuable function in bringing this subject before the House tonight. That there is real public disquiet on the subject has been borne out by the large amount of correspondence which, like so many hon. Members, I have received recently. The ordinary constituents, who have no political interest but merely the interest of public-minded people, are writing incessantly to hon. Members, and their letters suggest two things: firstly, that the penalties are inadequate and, secondly, that magistrates do not always inflict the best penalty available.
All I would say is that I have always been a little disquieted by the suggestion that the Central Government should dictate to magistrates what penalties they


should impose. I think a good service would be done if everyone knew that, by and large, the penalties are adequate and that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children can proceed in a more forcible way under other Acts. Again, magistrates can be made aware by correspondence in the local Press that the chief interest must not be the people who have offended but the welfare of children in general.
Finally, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done a magnificent job. My own mother used to spend a lot of time on this work, and I remember seeing journals which showed that for every one case taken to court the Society often succeeded in settling the matter amicably and restoring a pleasant state of affairs in the home in a much greater number of cases, and these good people who write to us should, perhaps, bear that in mind.

10.26 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I am sure the whole House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) for raising this matter this evening. As the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) has said, it is a matter which can stand almost any amount of publicity. We want publicity in order to build up a real volume of abhorrence towards cruelty to children and also to spread a knowledge of the practical ways of checking, and, if possible, of preventing such cruelty.
Cruelty is perhaps a misnomer as applied to offences under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act. For the purposes of that Act it includes welfare, assault, ill-treatment, neglect, exposure or abandonment. Of these, neglect is the commonest form of cruelty applied to children.
The House may wish to know that in each of the four years, from 1948 to 1951, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children investigated just about 40,000 cases of alleged cruelty. Of those cases, some 4,000 involved ill-treatment of some kind and led to 650 prosecutions by the N.S.P.C.C. In 1951, there were altogether 1,076 persons found guilty under Section 1 of the Act, of whom 30 were convicted on indictment.
That figure of about 1,000 cases of persons found guilty has been remarkably stable over a considerable number of years. It was slightly lower in 1950, when there were 974 persons found guilty. That is the latest year for which I can give the House some breakdown of the penalties inflicted, which I think will be of interest in view of what my hon. and gallant Friend said in opening the debate.
Of the cases coming before the magistrates' courts in 1950, 253 were fined, 230 were imprisoned up to three months, 140 were imprisoned for three months and up to six months, and 326 were otherwise dealt with, mainly by probation order. Of the cases in the higher courts-25 in that year—one ended in a fine; eight in imprisonment up to six months; four in imprisonment over six months and up to one year; three in imprisonment for over one year and up to two years; and nine were otherwise dealt with, no doubt mainly by probation order. In addition to those cases, of course there were no doubt a number of cases under the Offences Against the Person Act, but those figures are indistinguishable. I apologise to the House for giving these figures, but I think they are of some interest, and, as far as I know, they have not been given here, although they have been mentioned in another place.

Mr. George Porter: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question purely for information? Can he say how many of those cases were in duplicate?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I could not say offhand what the figures are, but I have no doubt that some of them were in duplicate, and, of course, a number of the offences involved more than one child. Forty thousand cases does not mean 40,000 children.
The causes of cruelty are, broadly, three-fold. First of all, there is ignorance; second, there is selfishness; and third, there is disturbance in family relations, generally arising out of divorce. Broadly speaking, I think I have put the causes in the order of importance, in the sense of the number of children affected by them. I have no statistics which I can give the House as to the division, but probably ignorance is easily the largest cause of cruelty. In cases where cruelty is inflicted by ignorance, we find that the people concerned are definitely of sub-normal intelligence.
In one sense of the word that may be a fortunate fact, because we are here up against a problem which, at any rate, is apparently soluble. In the case of selfishness, and in the case of the modern tendency to find disrupted families, we are up against a difficulty to which it is difficult to find a solution, but in the case of ignorance we can, at any rate, do something, and something which clearly can produce definite results.
The most practical type of remedy which is applicable is, perhaps, that to which my hon. Friend, I think it was, referred—the Salvation Army's Mayflower Home in Plymouth. That is an experiment—if that is not putting it too lightly—of great value. It was started in 1948 and has achieved encouraging results in training mothers found guilty of neglect, and placed on probation with the requirement to reside there four months. Children under five accompany their mothers. Training is simple and practical, including teaching in child care and household management, and the use to be made of welfare centres and clinics. If the husband is at home, the probation officer visits him to make suitable preparation for the return of his wife and children.
In Birmingham, the City Council have lately started a special training course in the women's prison for women convicted of neglect and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or longer. The course is intended to give the women a thorough grounding in elementary housewifery and mothercraft. Practical training during the day is combined with evening talks, the instructors being provided by the health, education, children's, and welfare department of the city. The Prison Commissioners also provide classes in home management in Holloway and Manchester Prisons. There are also homes where mothers may be sent on a medical recommendation, accompanied by their children up to the age of seven. They may stay there a temporary period. An example of that type is the Brentwood Recuperative Centre started by the Community Council of Lancashire.
In London, Liverpool, Manchester, Oldham, Sheffield and York, some of the families are helped by family service units. They operate from centres in which most of the staff reside and make

a concentrated attack on the families' problems by frequent, sometimes daily, visits to help with the children, the supply of furniture and other necessities, and by constant persuasion and education.
These schemes—and there are others—are intended to prevent cruelty occurring, to stop it at the source, which is much the most desirable thing, if we can effect it. But, of course, so far we have not prevented cruelty and there are cases where prosecution is still essential. The Home Secretary has no duty to institute proceedings or to direct the police to institute proceedings. So far as the Home Office are aware, the powers of punishment existing are adequate for their purpose, and in the Home Office opinion they are adequately applied by the courts. The figures I quoted would give some general indication of that.
The Home Office, however, have powers and exercise them. The hon. Member for Barking has referred to a circular that was issued to local authorities with a view to the designation of co-ordinating officers. It was a joint circular from the Home Office, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Education. It was sent to all local authorities on 31st July, 1950, and advocated the fullest co-ordination of all local arrangements designed for this purpose. About 75 per cent. of local authorities have already taken steps to implement the circular, and the number is still steadily increasing.
The hon. Member for Barking said that the circular itself did not tell the public where they should report cases of cruelty if they occurred. The circular was sent to local authorities, and it was intended to guide local authorities and not to guide the public. I should have thought that most members of the public would realise that the proper person to tell, in the event of their suspecting cruelty to a child, is the nearest policeman, and I hope that this debate will bring to the attention of everyone that that is the right action to take.—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.